- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,823
Well said. I agree 100%
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Benchmade steals the spyderhole
- Thread starter myplea
- Start date
Well said. I agree 100%
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2005
- Messages
- 5,171
"if a feature gives a competitive advantage which is not related ENTIRELY to it function as a brand identifier, it can not be trademarked".
There are equivalent methods of manipulating a knife blade.
Also, is it an edge?
As for the four holed Skirmish, it has four holes. The function of a round hole to manipulate the blade is open to all, as the patent expired. Now it is an issue of incorporating the hole into a design that doesn't infringe upon the Trademark. Four holes does not infringe.
There are equivalent methods of manipulating a knife blade.
Also, is it an edge?
As for the four holed Skirmish, it has four holes. The function of a round hole to manipulate the blade is open to all, as the patent expired. Now it is an issue of incorporating the hole into a design that doesn't infringe upon the Trademark. Four holes does not infringe.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Can you open a Skirmish by using any of the other three smaller holes? I can't. What would you say if, hypothetically, the Skirmish design used a round opening hole with three squares incorporated into the design instead of three holes? Would that infringe on the existing trademark, or not?
cutlerylover
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 2,558
Listen, there is only so much you can when designing knives, and one day there will be nothign left if every little think is patented, and trademarked...thats why we get some pretty funky looking knives today becasue the sesigners have to come up with something new and different...Some designs are just good, and I never saw a problem with one knife company using another knife companies ideas...As long as benchmade got permission/ or paid spyderco to use that "hole" (whata big fuss over a hole right?) then I don't see a problem, if they "stole" it, then that puts them right up there with the chinese knockoff companies...but no matter what happened it won't change what knives I buy...I buy the ones I like and I won't NOT buy a knife from a company becasue they are using other companies ideas, its a dog eat dog world, when it comes down to the questions is as follows: Is the knife good, and will it perform when I need it to without failing on me and causing and injury, does the knife look good to ME? And does this knife fit into my budget? Yes, ok, Ill take it!
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 20,928
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2000
- Messages
- 2,785
Well, I don't agree. I think it's a bad thing this trademark was granted. An opening hole has a practical function, period. A round hole is orders of magnitude easier to drill than an oval, elliptical or any other shape (unless it's laser cuted not drilled). Granting one company the round hole trademark automatically forces other companies to spend more by using different hole shapes. That is wrong.
Personally, I like Spydercos better than Benchmades and even bought some. I still can't agree with the round hole trademark issue.
- Joined
- May 9, 2000
- Messages
- 29,205
I'm not saying that you have to agree with it, but it has been gone over legally and the Trademark has been issued. The Trademark Office must have felt that the hole was a reconizable symbol of the Spyderco company (and in fact, it is more recognized by many people than the Spyderco Spyder is). The fact that other people don't agree with the Trademark Office really has no bearing on the situation. All that matters is that there is a Trademark and that anyone wishing to use the round opening hole has to get permission to do so from Spyderco. Your opinion on the matter means absolutely nothing as far as the legalities are concerned. If someone wants to challenge the Spyderco Trademark legally, they might just be able to convince the Trademark Office that a mistake was made in granting the Trademark, but until that is done, it is illegal to use the it without permission. We can debate that until the cows come home, and it won't make the slightest bit of difference.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2005
- Messages
- 5,171
Yes, you can swing it.
That is besides the point. As stated, the use of a round hole to manipulate a blade is open to all.
Therefore, if you have four, five, a million holes, and you can use one to manipulate the blade, the trademark is not violated.
Trademarks and design patents do not cover utility.
Certainly, you would agree with all restrictive knife laws.
After all, the law is the law. :wagfinger:
- Joined
- May 9, 2000
- Messages
- 29,205
As far as the Skirmish is concerned, I don't feel that the series of holes found on the blade violate the Spyderco Trademark. Just my personal opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
If you look at the blade steel on the 10750 it's the same as the Bird knives. I would venture to guest that Benchmade and Bird are being made in the same factory in China, hence the same steel and similar hole patterns.
A holes a hole, how can you really say anyone owns that except for the caveman that invented the wheel. It's like saying I can't call that pistol a 45 when it is a 45.
A holes a hole, how can you really say anyone owns that except for the caveman that invented the wheel. It's like saying I can't call that pistol a 45 when it is a 45.
The Byrd steel is 8Cr13MoV, while the Vex is listed as 8Cr14MoV.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,813
the holes don't violate the trademark, it is the fact that one of them is used to open the knife that violates the trademark.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 221
Lol I really like the idea of a company owning the concept of a hole.
To me thats like owning the concept of hot water.
WHAT !?!?! They heated the water you say?? But we have the patent on that !!! DAMN CHINA, they never respeckt anything.
:jerkit:
Exactly what I was thinking.
Huh? Now that statement just doesn't make sense.
Trademarks do NOT cover function. The spyderco patent on the hole has expired. The function is wide open. They trademarked the single large opening hole as a symbol of their company. That's the trademark. If you have two holes, it's not the same. If you have an oval, it's not the same. If you have a square, it's not the same.
Arguably, the trademark shouldn't have been issued, but it was. So using a single large round hole in the blade of the knife, regardless of it's function, is a violation of that trademark.
But you can't go and say that a multiholed knife violates a trademark if it is used to open the knife. It uses the expired patent, and it does not violate the trademark
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 8,968
except it doesn't, since there isn't only the one hole. Such a great double standard, there's nothing wrong with trademarking a functional part of the blade because the tm was allowed in the first place; but BM has got to be violating the law, even though the same government which granted the tm to Spyderco hasn't made them stop producing the multiple variants of the full and mini Skirmish for years. If the hole hasn't been invalidated yet, then it must be ok as a tm. If BM hasn't been forced to alter the Skirmish holes, then it must be ok as well.
Well IF benchmade broke the trademark law, then that would mean that spyderco would need to take legal action against them.
That should make benchmade take the knife of the market and proberly pay them for breaking the law in the first place. IF they broke the trademark law.
It really does not seem like that big a deal to me.
IF they broke the law, they'll pay - IF NOT Well no harm is done then.
That should make benchmade take the knife of the market and proberly pay them for breaking the law in the first place. IF they broke the trademark law.
It really does not seem like that big a deal to me.
IF they broke the law, they'll pay - IF NOT Well no harm is done then.