Benchmade steals the spyderhole

[m_calingo]

My first knife with a round hole was a Benchmade Ascent. That hole was licensed from Spyderco.

As I see it the Trademark should never have been granted because it is a functional hole that has been licensed. You don't license your Trademark.

This is a seriously long thread, so I may be repeating this, but ras has a good point here...

Consider the Mercedes Benz--it is an excellent automobile made by a great automobile company. It may have more than one trademark, but its most recognizable one is the tristar in the circle. That is its mark, and symbol. When people see that symbol, the name Mercedes Benz comes to mind.

Would Mercedes Benz license other car manufacturers to use their trademark?

How about the "swoosh" design on Nike shoes. Would Nike license Puma to use their swoosh?

If Spyderco's patent on the hole opener is now expired, how is it possible that Spyderco can "give" other knife makers permission to use their trademark???

 

[Keith Montgomery]

Patents and Trademarks have nothing to do with each other. Something doesn't need to have have a Patent to enable it to be Trademarked.

Mercedes would not licence another car company to use their Trademark, neither would Nike, and from what I understand, Spyderco doesn't either. However, if you want to use the Mercedes or Nike Trademark in an ad or on the cover of a book, etc., you would have to get permission, and possibly pay a fee for its use.

 

[ghostrider]

This isn’t to pick on brownshoe because he isn’t really saying much that hasn’t already been echoed on most of these threads. However many of the statements seem to be common misconceptions that are prevalent among this community, and my comments here are directed towards the arguments and not the person.

…They backed off on the Blackwood holes and Benchmade gives them no credit...why? because the patent expired.

For all you people who are thinking this is a matter of Spyderco trying to trademark an expired patent, you are wrong. The Spyderhole was never patented; it was only registered as a Trademark. They did license the Spyderhole to Benchmade for a brief period of time with part of the agreement being that Benchmade would credit Spyderco with the Spyderhole in their advertisements and literature (IIRC). Benchmade failed to do this to Spyderco’s satisfaction, so Spyderco had the contract annulled. That’s why Benchmade stopped using the Spyderhole. They currently license their Trademark hole to Boker, and Boker recognizes it as such in their literature and that maintains Trademark recognition.

Spyderco stopped Benchmade from using the hole in an attempt to call it a trademark, after Benchmade honored their patent for years. That's why the Ascent got an oval hole.

This statement is wrong. Spyderco stopped Benchmade from using the Spyderhole because they found Benchmade in breach of the contract that licensed Benchmade to use the hole.

There is nothing dishonorable about using a good idea after the patent expires...it's called business in Western society.

This has NOTHING to do with a “patent” however; it is dishonorable to use someone else’s Trademark without their permission.

Spyderco's patent has expired thus their hole is in public domain.

Again, there never was a patent on the Spyderhole; therefore it is not public domain.

Their claim of a trademark is tenuous at best. They've put out plenty of fixed blade knives w/o it. They're true trademark is the spyder...not the hole. We all know that.

It isn’t necessary to use the Trademark on every product. However, with the exception of the Jess Horn (AFIK the designer wouldn’t allow a hole in the blade), all Spyderco folders have had the Spyderhole. Furthermore, to suggest that the Spyderhole is not a recognizable feature of Spyderco knives is “tenuous at best” to the point of sounding duplicitous because if you don’t’ associate the Spyderhole with Spyderco, then you just haven’t been paying attention to Spyderco’s line of folding, pocket knives.

By the way, the hole was used by scagel in the 1940s...just a different shape.

If the hole was a different shape than the Spyderhole, then it has nothing to do with Spyderco Trademark.

This is a seriously long thread, so I may be repeating this, but ras has a good point here...

Consider the Mercedes Benz--it is an excellent automobile made by a great automobile company. It may have more than one trademark, but its most recognizable one is the tristar in the circle. That is its mark, and symbol. When people see that symbol, the name Mercedes Benz comes to mind.

Would Mercedes Benz license other car manufacturers to use their trademark?

How about the "swoosh" design on Nike shoes. Would Nike license Puma to use their swoosh?

If Spyderco's patent on the hole opener is now expired, how is it possible that Spyderco can "give" other knife makers permission to use their trademark???

Actually, he doesn't have a good point because Spyderco was able to get that license annulled because Benchmade failed to recognize the Trademark to Spyderco’s satisfaction. And again, there never was a patent on the Spyderhole. Trademarks are licensed all the time. We don’t know the details of the Vex.

Furthermore, Mercedes Benz (as well as other companies) does license their Trademarks to other companies. Admittedly it isn’t always to a competitor, but the cutlery industry has many exceptions in which companies work together with competitors.

If people didn’t think of Spyderco when the saw a Spyderhole in a folding knifes blade, then there wouldn’t be such uproar from the Spyderhole detractors.

At any rate, Benchmade has come out and addressed this issue, and Spyderco has remained silent in the face of that statement. It is what it is. Until Spyderco makes a public comment on the issue, then the argument seems moot.

 

[hwyhobo]

Furthermore, Mercedes Benz (as well as other companies) does license their Trademarks to other companies. Admittedly it isn’t always to a competitor

Always? Please name three cases when it was. Okay, two.

What other companies license their trademarks to competitors?

 

[ghostrider]

Always? Please name three cases when it was. Okay, two.

What other companies license their trademarks to competitors?

Are you serious? This just sounds argumentative since I clearly stated that the cutlery industry has exceptions to the rule that you don't colaborate with your competitor. There are several examples (in the cutlery industry) where companies carry competitors logo's or trademarks on their product. The fact that they recognize the competitors on their product strengthens brand recognition. Also, since we don't know the details of the Vex, we don't know how it will affect brand recognition. Based on the attention it's gotten so far, I think its safe to say it has boosted the strength of Spyderco's Trademark.


OBTW:
IIRC there was an American car company in the 80's who colaborated with Maserati on a touring sedan. Also, I put the word "always" in there because I wasn't sure the practice hadn't taken place in the auto industry. It was in no way meant to mislead and I appoligize if it came accross that way.

I still don't understand what the big deal is since Benchmade came out and said that there was an agreement. IMHO, the very fact that they even made a statement shows recognition of the Trademark since the use of it created such scrunity that they felt it needed official comment.

 

[Sword and Shield]

OBTW:
IIRC there was an American car company in the 80's who colaborated with Maserati on a touring sedan. Also, I put the word "always" in there because I wasn't sure the practice hadn't taken place in the auto industry. It was in no way meant to mislead and I appoligize if it came accross that way.

Chrysler, with the Maserati TC. Maserati only really supplied the engine.

Licensing a trademark? Well, I've seen plenty of things marked with the BMW roundel...

 

[rosconey2]

maseratti did the bodies-engines were mopar's 4 bangers with help from cosworth for extra power-

http://members.aol.com/TCMasratiPage/TC/Maserati.html

 

[flipe8]

Wasn't there a little car that had "suspension by Lotus" with it's literature and maybe even on a small badge on the side? I remember this very specifically as it was considered a serious up-grade, given the car's price and model range. Really, isn't Benchmade more or less doing the same with the Round Hole? In effect, they're touting this as an "upgrade", acknowlegding it or not?

 

[hardheart]

suspension, bodies, engines? None of that is a trademark. Again, what's the point of licensing a trademark, not your technology?

 

[EDCeeker]

This pretty-much sums-up things for me:

If people didn’t think of Spyderco when the saw a Spyderhole in a folding knifes blade, then there wouldn’t be such uproar from the Spyderhole detractors.

Indeed. Hell, I'm not even what many of you might think of as a true knife knut, and even I quickly associated the hole with Spyderco.

At any rate, Benchmade has come out and addressed this issue,

For some value of "addressed."

and Spyderco has remained silent in the face of that statement. It is what it is. Until Spyderco makes a public comment on the issue, then the argument seems moot.

Indeed. And if Spyderco continues to remain silent, for whatever reason(s), I'm left with nothing but to assume the "agreement" between the two companies was to Spyderco's satisfaction, and therefor will not be dissuaded from purchasing the knife. However, if there's some proof Spyderco was done wrong, then I'll shun Benchmade entirely. Probably permanently/forever. I have this "thing" about integrity, you see.

 

[ghostrider]

suspension, bodies, engines? None of that is a trademark. Again, what's the point of licensing a trademark, not your technology?

What difference does it make to you in this situation? I ask because again, this just sounds argumentative.

However, the badge and the grill are trademarked, and they were both used. BTW, the grill is also functional. Sounds like a good comparison to this situation, however I'm not much on cars.

Also, Spyderco didn't liscense the technology (that would be the hole-opener). They merely liscensed the shape (round ) of a feature (hole-opener). Anyone is free to use the hole opener without liscense. What requires a liscense is the round hole-opener. It's much like Coca Cola's bottle shape. The bottle is functional, as well as being something that existed before Coca Cola used it. The shape of the Coca Cola bottle is Trademarked. Knife blades, and round holes were in existance before Spyderco. Spyderco chose to use a round, thumb hole-opener as it's trademark, and AFIK this wasn't something that previously existed.

One would have to ask the individual company as to what the point of their liscensing is. It often results in further brand recognition, and certainly has in the case of Spyderco's round hole-opener.

 

[ghostrider]

Deleted double post. Sorry.

 

[ghostrider]

Wasn't there a little car that had "suspension by Lotus" with it's literature and maybe even on a small badge on the side? I remember this very specifically as it was considered a serious up-grade, given the car's price and model range. Really, isn't Benchmade more or less doing the same with the Round Hole? In effect, they're touting this as an "upgrade", acknowlegding it or not?

That's right, it was the Vega-Cosworth (or am I confusing it with another one?)! Don't know about trademarks on that one, though I distinctively remember seeing the Maserati grill and trident on that '89 Chrysler.

 

[bh49]

And if Spyderco continues to remain silent, for whatever reason(s), I'm left with nothing but to assume the "agreement" between the two companies was to Spyderco's satisfaction, and therefor will not be dissuaded from purchasing the knife. However, if there's some proof Spyderco was done wrong, then I'll shun Benchmade entirely. Probably permanently/forever. I have this "thing" about integrity, you see.

I feel totally opposite about agreement. I think, if Spyderco would be satisfied, they would say something. So I will not buy any BMs until I am sure that the deal is clean.

 

[cutlerylover]

I will buy both spydero knives as well as Benchmade no matter what the situation is....Even if they had lawsuits aginst each other it doesn't change the fact that both of their knives are good knives, and thats what I am lookign for...I don't think there would ever be a reason hat I would personally ban a knife company from my purchases unless the quality changes...

 

[Boats]

Where is the trademark?

Where's the trademark?

Where's the trademark?

Where's the trademark?

The fact of the matter, despite claims to the contrary, the function known as the "spyderhole" first appears in Sal Glesser's patent US4347665. One can debate the description all one wants that only a "depression" is discussed, but look at the line drawings, particularly "feature 34."

http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn10=US04347665__

The numbered feature is unmistakeably a hole and not a depression or some other linguistic dodge.

Now look at the trademark document:

Please note the curious timing. Spyderco was granted a design patent on the above patent number on 09/07/82. A design patent expires 14 years from issuance. Spyderco's expired on 09/07/96.

Spyderco's trademark was applied for 01/23/95. Need some lead time right? The trademark was registered 01/28/97. Whew, only a four month window where the hole couldn't be defended with a letter from a lawyer. Decent timing.

If a company wished to put up the coin, that is an easily attacked, and likely defeated, trademark. The evidence provided here should strongly underscore, even to a layman, that the protection of the hole has likely been extended by a very dubious piece of lawyering.

Problem is that the fight would be very public, very expensive, and very messy. I suspect this is why you see Spyderco essentially issue a "license" to virtually all comers regardless of their corporate size. They don't want a fight over the trademark in Golden Colorado either. Everyone makes money, with their respective knives, instead of spending on IP attorneys. The "morality" or "integrity" involved in any of this is little more than various camps of fans mounting their respective high horses. The companies involved are way more pragmatic.

Benchmade "stole" the spyderhole? That's a laugher. Benchmade and Spyderco have reached an agreement not to challenge Spyderco's tissue thin trademarking of the hole. Ethics have nothing to do with it. It's just business.

Spyderco was being canny trying to trademark an expiring patented feature. Benchmade is being equally canny by ignoring Spyderco's ploy because they could, with a 90/10 chance of success, beat the TM and everyone at the top of both companies suspects that is true after chatting with their consiglieres.

It is amazing what bedfellows the bottom line creates. No one wants the lawsuit, so they cooperate. Happens in other fields all of the time. I doubt anything more than chump change passes between Benchmade and Spyderco as regards their latest agreement.

 

[ghostrider]

Where's the trademark?

It isn’t necessary to put the Trademark on all products to establish a trademark.

Where's the trademark?

It isn’t necessary to put the Trademark on all products to establish a trademark.

Where's the trademark?

It isn’t necessary to put the Trademark on all products to establish a trademark.

The fact of the matter, despite claims to the contrary, the function known as the "Spyderhole" first appears in Sal Glesser's patent US4347665. One can debate the description all one wants that only a "depression" is discussed, but look at the line drawings, particularly "feature 34."

There is a big difference between a “round hole” and a “depression”. You argument only shows that Spyderco was trying to establish their Tradmark at the time they applied for the patent. Of course they would put a “round-hole” in the drawing because they intended for that to be their Trademark. The use of the term “depression” for the Patent covered much more than the Spyderhole, and could easily include such things as the oval hole, or the depression used on the Jess Horn model.

http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn10=US04347665__

The numbered feature is unmistakeably a hole and not a depression or some other linguistic dodge.

See my above comment, and it wasn’t a ‘linguistic dodge’ because it covered the open mechanism, not the shape of the opening mechanism.

Now look at the trademark document:

Please note the curious timing. Spyderco was granted a design patent on the above patent number on 09/07/82. A design patent expires 14 years from issuance. Spyderco's expired on 09/07/96.

Spyderco's trademark was applied for 01/23/95. Need some lead time right? The trademark was registered 01/28/97. Whew, only a four month window where the hole couldn't be defended with a letter from a lawyer. Decent timing.

That only shows a reason why Spyderco was able to demonstrate the brand recognition to support their application for a Trademark.

If a company wished to put up the coin, that is an easily attacked, and likely defeated, trademark. The evidence provided here should strongly underscore, even to a layman, that the protection of the hole has likely been extended by a very dubious piece of lawyering.

So far all you’ve demonstrated is that Spyderco has been using the Spyderhole on folding, pocketknives since 1982, and that it was never patented, thereby legitimizing the Trademark Spyderhole. If a company wishes to challenge it in court; that is well within their rights. The only reason for rescending the Trademark would be if it could be proven that the round, hole opener provide a functional advantage over other holes, and that would be hard to prove since there are claims to the contrary by Spyderco’s competitors.

… The "morality" or "integrity" involved in any of this is little more than various camps of fans mounting their respective high horses. The companies involved are way more pragmatic.

I’d agree to a certain extent. But I disagree with its entirety. When one company uses another company’s Trademark without license or permission; then it is theft pure and simple, and that is a question of morality and integrity.

Benchmade "stole" the spyderhole? That's a laugher. Benchmade and Spyderco have reached an agreement not to challenge Spyderco's tissue thin trademarking of the hole. Ethics have nothing to do with it. It's just business.

This is just plain supposition. We don’t know the details. One could just as easily claim that the agreement was to meet in court over the challenge, and that too would be supposition.

Spyderco was being canny trying to trademark an expiring patented feature.

Not true, there is a difference between a round hole, and a “depression”. While there is little difference in the function the definition of the two terms, the difference lies in the appearance of the two terms. One is specific; the other is vague and could cover many opening holes.

Benchmade is being equally canny by ignoring Spyderco's ploy because they could, with a 90/10 chance of success, beat the TM and everyone at the top of both companies suspects that is true after chatting with their consiglieres.

Have you gotten this information from anyone in “the top of” either of those companies about this case? If the answer is no, then with all due respect I humbly submit that I suspect that you’ve been telling to many sea-stories.

It is amazing what bedfellows the bottom line creates. No one wants the lawsuit, so they cooperate. Happens in other fields all of the time. I doubt anything more than chump change passes between Benchmade and Spyderco as regards their latest agreement.

Seems you haven’t been paying attention. Based on they’re practice concerning the Trademark, my observation is that Spyderco is less concerned with the “money issue” of the Trademark, and more concerned with protecting the Trademark for the sake of it being a Trademark. While I don’t know the terms or conditions of the license of the Trademark to other manufactures, It is well known that the price a knife maker must pay for it’s use is a paltry $1 per knife with a limit of 50 knives per year. So, you could well be correct in regard to the amount of money that will exchange hands.

 

[digitalrebelttu]

There is a big difference between a “round hole” and a “depression”. You argument only shows that Spyderco was trying to establish their Tradmark at the time they applied for the patent. Of course they would put a “round-hole” in the drawing because they intended for that to be their Trademark. The use of the term “depression” for the Patent covered much more than the Spyderhole, and could easily include such things as the oval hole, or the depression used on the Jess Horn model.

Ghostrider, I suggest that you look up claim interpretation and the doctrine of equivalents with respect to patent claims.

 

[Cougar Allen]

It isn’t necessary to put the Trademark on all products to establish a trademark.

What??? You mean the Pontiac trademark is still valid, even though General Motors doesn't use it on all their products???

 

[ghostrider]

Ghostrider, I suggest that you look up claim interpretation and the doctrine of equivalents with respect to patent claims.

Fair enough. I'll google it and see what I can find. Thanks for the advice. Anything else.