Thread: Luban planes

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

David, try staying on topic.

The subject is Luban, just Luban.

Anything else is irrevelant. You might think it is interesting, but it is extraneous to the debate.

The simple facts are:

• Luban planes have not infringed IPP of LN or anyone else,
• Luban planes are readily available in the States under both their name and a host of other Qiangsheng and retailer marketing names.
• They are not being seized by US Customs.
• Qiangsheng is not being sued by LN.
• No law has been broken.

Repeat, no law has been broken.

I agree fundamentally, however one critical point:

Luban is Woodriver is Quangsheng is Juuma. For all I know, it's probably sold with another dozen labels across the world as well. I own a considerable number of this brand's items (in many of it's multiple nomenclatures) and it's ridiculous to think of them as different, because they're not different. That Rob Cosman video is just a joke; he's a sociopath who will lie to you without any hesitation or qualms. His agenda is sales and he lies to do it. The lever pivot is the difference - seriously? That's the best he could do? It's not actually; from memory, the Luban was slightly better on real key tolerances, but even then it's so little it's moot and not worth discussing. Rob Cosman only did that YT video, because Woodcraft, etc., were/are worried North American customers were/are finding ways to buy overseas versions of the Woodriver label at a fraction of the cost - it's marketing deception for the gullible. They are ALL made in the same place, so don't be fooled by the obvious same difference between the labels; lol. If you're not sure of this, take a look at Workshop Heaven's Quangsheng planes, where on the store pages they state "Please note that we are unable to ship Quangsheng products to North America due to retail exclusivity restrictions". So what brand exists in Nth America, that prevents them from selling Quengsheng? Woodriver of course; which have unique identical items across the board in that continent. If the label wasn't different on my own items, I'd have no possible way of knowing which was which - no way at all, except maybe the receipt showing where I bought it.

As for who copied who? The first question should be instead, especially considering patents for bedrock planes expired long before any of us were even born, to ask does it really matter if it's copied? I think it's time to move on and accept that expired patents just become general shared knowledge and I love that. It's information for all of us to use freely and benefit from. Copy it and be proud of it - the inventor probably died before any of our grandparents were born - he doesn't care now as he's long gone. You are free to copy the wheel as well, no one's even going to think about that one whatsoever. Luban planes (or whatever they're called) are awesome; assuming you haven't bought from some unofficial retailer, who's probably selling used rejects. I bought from legit retaillers and my collection is amazing; perfect. I would forgo LN and LV for Luban without hesitation and they're all copies. The cutting blade is the reason why I choose Luban first - the Luban's blade is sharper - it won't matter with typical Aussie hardwoods though. It does with pine. That said, Paul Sellers has stated, that modern bedrock planes are too heavy and offer no real beneficial features, which I agree with. Instead, he recommends older bailey planes. Fortunately, I find my Luban bricks feathers and have not made a mistake consequently.

The only problem I have, purchasing Luban products though, is possible exploitations of manufacturing staff, but I have no knowledge either way, of whether such things are happening. Information on such matters however, would have to be considered against potential political propaganda motivating it. It would not surprise me, considering the quality of the work I've seen, that those who make these planes are rewarded and happy. I have 2 or 3 dozen products that have greatly impressed me. My only concern is whether this trend continues; the standard is so high I wonder if it can be maintained? I've seen no evidence that trade dress has been breached and I can easily tell the difference between my planes and any other brand (except labels made by the same company, but that is allowed because they're all made by the same owner).

Well, there's no great reason to agree with Graeme - he has no clue what trade dress is in the US and why woodriver took what's now the luban planes and had things changed a bit on them so that they didn't have a trade dress resembling LN.

rob's just a forward (as in, direct sometimes to the point of "ghee, is there anything that's not intended to be a sales pitch?") guy who has been teaching beginners for so long that what's important in a plane beyond just teaching beginners is off of his radar...

...and it's not just an issue of protecting woodcraft's markup (my opinion - it must be pretty stiff, even here where they're not marked up twice to come from halfway around the world and then go back again to australia), it's also that Rob is the distributor for the WR planes in Canada where, to my knowledge, there is no woodcraft presence at all.

And, of course, WC is going to prevent luban planes from being sold in the US (by agreement with the supplier) if possible.

So much passion about a hand plane

Originally Posted by woodPixel

So much passion about a hand plane

Well, if you go by the opinions of some, we're already off our rockers for using hand tools in the first place!!

Originally Posted by woodPixel

So much passion about a hand plane

It’s still about hand planes? I thought we’d got to the willy waving part of the argument.

Originally Posted by Colin62

It’s still about hand planes? I thought we’d got to the willy waving part of the argument.

Here in Australia, we have this saying, "Play the ball (planes), and not the man"

Originally Posted by dschumy

I agree fundamentally, however one critical point:

Luban is Woodriver is Quangsheng is Juuma. For all I know, it's probably sold with another dozen labels across the world as well.

I recall reading this thread. D.W.'s point was about trade dress, a form of intellectual property, about the appearance, the look, of these tools, not whether they use the bedrock design or not. A tool distributor/maker would have to be stupid to allow look alikes to invade their market and just sit there without going to court to protect their brand.

As I recall, that was the only point - basically - as to why castings and other things would be done totally differently in the same factory.

There seems to have been a lot of objection to basic legal fact in the US. Statute and published interpretation - which is tiring when people argue what their ideals are vs. what is and what is simply referred to as part of US Code (it's not even an opinion ceded to regulatory bodies - its US code, the law as passed by legislative bodies).

And I don't always like it, but it doesn't matter what my ideals are. I don't think Gibson should be able to threaten to sue banjo makers over a shape that's been around since 1935, but they can. And a smaller maker who is infringed upon can be pressured to sell their design.

And someone like LN can retain an attorney and hope that threats will be enough to get someone else to change trade dress, but lack of filing doesn't change the law.

I'm sure Rob Cosman knows if they're made in the same location or by the same firm, just with different castings and patterns. The original versions that WC got were QS-tool postings (webpage for the parent now removed as it just had dead copies of LN, LV and Glen Drake tools) with the lever cap changed in color.

Originally Posted by raffo

I recall reading this thread. D.W.'s point was about trade dress, a form of intellectual property, about the appearance, the look, of these tools, not whether they use the bedrock design or not. A tool distributor/maker would have to be stupid to allow look alikes to invade their market and just sit there without going to court to protect their brand.

I don't think there is an issue of trade dress at all; there's no court case ruling against any of them and that's because all three are clearly distinguishable from everything else. Do you have any trouble identifying a LN from a Veritas or a Luban? I don't and if you do I'm going to look at you funny. The only planes that would be impossible to tell apart (if not for the contrived label), are the planes made by the same company in China, sold under many different names across the world: i.e. Luban, Quangsheng, Woodriver, Juuma, etc.. I think D.W. is complaining because a Chinese company is doing exactly what LN and LV are already doing, where all three can do it legitimately. The patents for Bedrock planes ended before any of us even lived. I don't see any evidence of any trade dress breaching at all. What I think motivates DW's fears instead, is the price charged for such sublime Chinese manufactured labels, particularly QS and Luban. Even in Nth America, the Chinese Woodriver variant are still the choice for most looking for a bedrock feature, simply because it's much cheaper and actually better than LV & LN bedrocks. It's a real threat that's hurting those two brands and DW knows it. You're crazy to go anything other than the Chinese model actually. I bought mine years ago and since then everyone else is catching on. The price has steadily been rising ever since (but still well below the overpriced Nth American manufactured brands - especially in Aust).

So this is not about "trade dress", which is a ridiculous notion. This is about the fear that a Chinese manufacturer is taking over with a much cheaper, yet better product.

Personally I think its excellent that China can make things of such outstanding quality.

I hope they push themselves to elevate across the board. Moving from bulk-cheap commodity crap to excellence is a good thing to do.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Personally I think its excellent that China can make things of such outstanding quality.

I hope they push themselves to elevate across the board. Moving from bulk-cheap commodity crap to excellence is a good thing to do.

They are already doing it.

Remember, almost all Apple products are made in China, and their quality is reasonable.

And lots of Mercedes Benz cars are made in China. I was in China shortly before lockdown and found there were three ways to identify Chinese built Mercedes from German imports:

1. Model numbers end with the letter L for long wheel base (eg C250L),
2. Cars are about 150mm longer than the German ones so have a slightly different profile and larger rear doors,
3. Paint work is noticably better than the excellent paint work on the German imports.

Problem is that local chains are addicted to buying crap!

Originally Posted by dschumy

I don't think there is an issue of trade dress at all; there's no court case ruling against any of them and that's because all three are clearly distinguishable from everything else. Do you have any trouble identifying a LN from a Veritas or a Luban? I don't and if you do I'm going to look at you funny. The only planes that would be impossible to tell apart (if not for the contrived label), are the planes made by the same company in China, sold under many different names across the world: i.e. Luban, Quangsheng, Woodriver, Juuma, etc.. I think D.W. is complaining because a Chinese company is doing exactly what LN and LV are already doing, where all three can do it legitimately. The patents for Bedrock planes ended before any of us even lived. I don't see any evidence of any trade dress breaching at all. What I think motivates DW's fears instead, is the price charged for such sublime Chinese manufactured labels, particularly QS and Luban. Even in Nth America, the Chinese Woodriver variant are still the choice for most looking for a bedrock feature, simply because it's much cheaper and actually better than LV & LN bedrocks. It's a real threat that's hurting those two brands and DW knows it. You're crazy to go anything other than the Chinese model actually. I bought mine years ago and since then everyone else is catching on. The price has steadily been rising ever since (but still well below the overpriced Nth American manufactured brands - especially in Aust).

So this is not about "trade dress", which is a ridiculous notion. This is about the fear that a Chinese manufacturer is taking over with a much cheaper, yet better product.

The issue with WoodRiver is historical now, and it unlikely to be understood or appreciated unless you are aware of the events that took place. It was ALL about trade dress, but the situation has altered in recent years, which is why this is no longer a central part of the argument.

Briefly: WoodRiver planes were introduced to the USA (and the world) by WoodCraft, a woodworking chain in the USA. They contracted the Quangsheng factory to copy - copy!! - the LN line of planes. When they were first released (Mk 1), the planes presented in exactly the same livery as the LN planes they copied. In fact, the planes were cast using a LN plane (NOT a Stanley Bedrock!). The theft was clear and indefensible. There were raging discussions on US forums, and eventually FWW magazine completed an investigation:

Lie-Nielsen, WoodRiver and Stanley Planes - FineWoodworking

Lie Nielsen did take WoodCraft to court to defend their trade dress. It was very likely a win for LN as soon after WoodRiver brought out their Mk 2 versions, which changed the appearance and features of these planes. The results were a step backwards, and the planes came in for criticism. It appears that many of the planes later sold as Luban, etc were Mk 2 versions.

WoodCraft employed Rob Cosman to redesign the WoodRiver planes. Rob had received the royal boot from Lie Nielsen as the Canadian agent for LN, and now needed a new brand to attach to. The result was the (current) Mk 3 design, which has been a huge success - in part because they appear very decent planes, and in part because Rob has been a very good agent and salesman.

So, the issues are that WoodCraft moved the WoodRiver away from the trade dress of LN to save their brand. However the memory of their duplicity still rankles many, and mud sticks to the brand. This is not helped by the fact that WoodRiver and Quangsheng have continued to copy tools from LN, Lee Valley and Tite Mark. Manufacturers pour millions into R&D, and then the results are stolen.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by dschumy

I don't think there is an issue of trade dress at all; there's no court case ruling against any of them and that's because all three are clearly distinguishable from everything else. Do you have any trouble identifying a LN from a Veritas or a Luban? I don't and if you do I'm going to look at you funny. The only planes that would be impossible to tell apart (if not for the contrived label), are the planes made by the same company in China, sold under many different names across the world: i.e. Luban, Quangsheng, Woodriver, Juuma, etc.. I think D.W. is complaining because a Chinese company is doing exactly what LN and LV are already doing, where all three can do it legitimately. The patents for Bedrock planes ended before any of us even lived. I don't see any evidence of any trade dress breaching at all. What I think motivates DW's fears instead, is the price charged for such sublime Chinese manufactured labels, particularly QS and Luban. Even in Nth America, the Chinese Woodriver variant are still the choice for most looking for a bedrock feature, simply because it's much cheaper and actually better than LV & LN bedrocks. It's a real threat that's hurting those two brands and DW knows it. You're crazy to go anything other than the Chinese model actually. I bought mine years ago and since then everyone else is catching on. The price has steadily been rising ever since (but still well below the overpriced Nth American manufactured brands - especially in Aust).

So this is not about "trade dress", which is a ridiculous notion. This is about the fear that a Chinese manufacturer is taking over with a much cheaper, yet better product.

None of that is accurate, including the fact that despite much cheaper labor, WR still doesn't make a plane as good as LN. And there's no excuse that they don't given their monstrously lower labor costs and the fact that the machining tolerances on woodworking tools aren't really that tight.

You've stepped in the Graeme camp. Trade dress is statute. It doesn't require a court decision to be law - you're attempting to legislate or judge from keyboard with little knowledge. It also doesn't work that you can tell them apart when things go to jury. I can tell a Tokai from Gibson - they literally say "Gibson" or "Tokai" on the pegheads. Would someone be confused by the brand name? It doesn't matter, it's already established in court in that case due to failure of negotiations prior to court that the peghead shape is the element of trade dress for guitars. Gibson can establish that anything else non-functional is also part of it, but they've had difficulty doing that (they tried, but had advertised the functional advantages of certain design elements - it actually took an appeal to get all of that ironed out in a much bigger market than planes as Gibson won the case on the first go-around and every guitar with one cutaway and solid body similar to this was Gibson's own. The court backed off then and went back to pegheads.

I get your mode. You just want something real bad, and you want it cheap. It doesn't matter what the laws are, you can fill in the blanks backwards with make believe talk.

Woodcraft changed the designs of the WR planes to remove anything that resembled LN and not bedrock (at least many things if not all of them). Do you think they did that because "there was no trade dress issue?"

Why wouldn't woodcraft just sell luban planes instead? The answer to that is they looked like LN planes at the start - same colors, etc, and it would've gotten them in trouble.

I don't have any LN or LV planes at this point and don't really care, but it takes someone uneducated with the samples that I saw to believe that luban or WR planes are better than LN planes. You get to watch your hero in a video fixing a cap iron that still wasn't right from the factory - how that happens in a place where labor and business costs are probably about a 6th or 10th is beyond me, but they're just overweight junk aimed at beginners.

This whole thing that keeps coming up about law not being law without a court case is dopey at best. Really dopey. The courts exist to interpret law, not establish it.

FWIW - trade dress and the threat of defending it never did much for me (or anything). As in, Graeme and dsch..whatever - you're posting about your ideals. What you wish, like you're watching a sports game.

When I wanted nice planes, I bought LN - I could afford them and the existence of WR made no difference.

The skill is in the user and not the plane, though, and thus all are gone.

I did have trouble getting a banjo when gibson asserted all at once through threat letters that they would nail anyone selling any banjo with certain elements from a mastertone banjo. Their company owner at the time was a former attorney and they do like to litigate. Thankfully, PRS beat them for pretty much everything in the one case that was tried aside from peghead shape.

To show how strong branding is, the one thing that's forbidden (the top of the peghead design for gibson) is what everyone still wants to copy, and if you get a well made version of one of their guitars (from yamaha, etc), the peghead scroll is different so that they can be imported into the US. Anything that violates trade dress is forbidden in the US, and it's a customs decision - not a court decision. I like tokai guitars - actually just ordered one. It could be seized at the border, but it probably won't be. I take that risk. I want to build a couple of carved top guitars and it's not so much that I care about the gibson scroll in this case, there are elements in some of the tokai guitars copied from older gibsons, so I want one in hand.

But, because tokai chose to make something close to the scroll, they cannot import them into the US. There was never a court case, just a handshake deal that gibson would stand down if tokai didn't import them into the US. They *do* import some into canada, but that's not much of a market for gibson. I have no idea if I'd rather get them imported officially into the US (outside of the law's effect, just speaking hypothetically). Why? If they were imported here, they'd just be doubled in price and marketed as "better than gibson". They're not. They're cheaper than gibson, and they're good, but they're not better and many of the lower models (This is sort of like woodriver) that people trumpet on about "This $950 guitar is better than gibson's $2800 les paul standard" are just cost cut models with nits here or there - and further in their case, with cheaper wood (no clue who seasons castings better in planes, but luban uses cheaper blade material even though there's no real excuse for them to do it at what they charge for a plane made in a copy country. Use some of the extra you save offshoring to the lowest cost and spend $15 and get real A2 steel ....no go"

So, thus far, trade dress has made no change to the tools I've gotten, and it stuffed an order of a banjo that I'd made years ago (I had to get a different one with different inlay, etc), and it limits what I can get in terms of guitars with specific pegheads.

The reason LN would've gone after WR right away may have nothing to do with WR in general. As in, they may have considered that there'd be little chance that woodcraft would sell their overpriced junk (my opinion) over top of LN's planes except to people who weren't potential LN customers, anyway. But if they do not issue letters informing WR of the issue and setting conditions, then they could not come back to this time period at least ( and maybe ever) and try to prevent brand dilution later. Fender did not, for a long time, protect their peghead design and guitar parts companies in business prior to the point where they decided to protect it can be licensed under fender and not have to pay fender anything. It's an official mark on their necks letting people know that they're legal (this is all civil law, not criminal, too) to buy and sell whereas if I make a fender peghead copy on a neck, they can prevent me from selling it - even for no profit.

The statute itself gives the courts the ability to determine what causes brand dilution and what's protected or what's functional.

if you took an original quangsheng plane, showed it to a jury in an actual court case with matching colors, they would identify LN and quansheng as similar. A rank beginner might, too. In my opinion, nobody would confuse a tokai guitar for a gibson because the brands are right on the part that's protected, but the courts have decided that the reasonable standard is the shape of the peghead as it's distinctive by brand. So, you can't just look at two planes and say "I can tell them apart, so there's no violation". You're confusing counterfeiting with trade dress.

Strangely, they didn't put a subsection in the law for idealistic people who just want stuff cheaper and who don't think any of it matters unless they're the one with the original product.