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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:15-cv-04166-AB-PJW Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:6

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

Case 2:15-cv-04166-AB-PJW Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:7

1
2

fixed blade knives in general.

30.

Knives with the LAWKS, AutoLAWKS and L.B.S. locking

mechanisms exhibit far less resistance to folding than comparably priced

fixed blade knives manufactured by Columbia River.

31.

Knives with the LAWKS, AutoLAWKS and L.B.S. locking

mechanisms exhibit far less resistance to folding than lower priced fixed

blade knives in general.

8
9
10
11

32.

Knives with the LAWKS, AutoLAWKS and L.B.S. locking

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

Case 2:15-cv-04166-AB-PJW Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:8

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

Case 2:15-cv-04166-AB-PJW Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:9

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.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1117, Cold Steel is further entitled

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.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1117, Cold Steel is further entitled

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

Case 2:15-cv-04166-AB-PJW Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:10

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

Case 2:15-cv-04166-AB-PJW Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:11

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
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Cold Steel, Inc.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
COMPLAINT

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

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
Attorneys for Plaintiff
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