Copyright?

Roger that.

But what if the next guy decides Black Handles are his trademark, or titanium, or stonewashing, or any of the myriad other common features?
 
Hey Brian ... what are you doing over here talking about TMs?

Don't you have hundreds of those cool Ti pens to deliver?:D

I can just see you kicking back with an Iced Tea on the computer in the house while Axel is out in the shop half buried in an avalanche of little titanium pen parts. :)
 
Fellhoelter said:
Roger that.

But what if the next guy decides Black Handles are his trademark, or titanium, or stonewashing, or any of the myriad other common features?
Click to expand...

That's very true.
Obviously there's a limit, and I understand why folks might be torqued about the hole being so broadly claimed as a mark.
 
Fellhoelter said:
Roger that.

But what if the next guy decides Black Handles are his trademark, or titanium, or stonewashing, or any of the myriad other common features?
Click to expand...
Busse has an incontestable trademark on that hole. To my understanding, that means that for at least a period of five years, Busse has featured that hole prominently in the promotion of their knives. It is kind of like this... They put forth a trademark application, used the hell out of it and nobody contested it for over five years... NOW IT IS INCONTESTABLE. Nobody can argue that is isn't fair, PERIOD.
 
Rick Marchand said:
Busse has an incontestable trademark on that hole. To my understanding, that means that for at least a period of five years, Busse has featured that hole prominently in the promotion of their knives. It is kind of like this... They put forth a trademark application, used the hell out of it and nobody contested it for over five years... NOW IT IS INCONTESTABLE. Nobody can argue that is isn't fair, PERIOD.
Click to expand...

What if it is determined to have become "Generic"?
 
AVigil said:
What if it is determined to have become "Generic"?
Click to expand...
Impossible, I'm afraid. It should have been challenged during that 5year period. Now, it can NEVER be changed unless Busse discontinues his endeavor to defend it.

It was a combination of timing, good marketing, and persistence that landed Busse that trademark.
 
I do understand what you are meaning by "generic" but I don't think that Busse will allow the hole to become so commonplace as to cause his trademark to commit "genericide". I'll put it this way... I guess "Google" is danerously close to that point, after recently showing up in a few dictionaries. So, unless the generic definition of knife, specifies a hole in the guard, there is little hope of it going away.
 
Rick Marchand said:
I do understand what you are meaning by "generic" but I don't think that Busse will allow the hole to become so commonplace as to cause his trademark to commit "genericide". I'll put it this way... I guess "Google" is danerously close to that point, after recently showing up in a few dictionaries. So, unless the generic definition of knife, specifies a hole in the guard, there is little hope of it going away.
Click to expand...

"Hole in the guard"? Funny thing is the Busse trademark is "Hole in rear of the blade"...... Hmmmm is the guard the rear of the blade, are flare tubes in the handle also considered the rear of the blade? How about a person mills an opening this not exactly round? So maybe makers should make the hole a bit oblong so as to not interfere with the round hole Busse trademarked after taking the idea from other makers?
 
AVigil said:
"Hole in the guard"? Funny thing is the Busse trademark is "Hole in rear of the blade"...... Hmmmm is the guard the rear of the blade, are flare tubes in the handle also considered the rear of the blade? How about a person mills an opening this not exactly round? So maybe makers should make the hole a bit oblong so as to not interfere with the round hole Busse trademarked after taking the idea from other makers?
Click to expand...
Busse has several registered trademarks.
The Busse hole trademark argument has been criticised and scrutinized many times over... it isn't going away anytime soon. Regardless of whether or not he was the "first" to do it, he saw a feature that he wanted exclusive rights to and was successful in doing so.
 
Rick Marchand said:
Busse has several registered trademarks.
The Busse hole trademark argument has been criticised and scrutinized many times over... it isn't going away anytime soon. Regardless of whether or not he was the "first" to do it, he saw a feature that he wanted exclusive rights to and was successful in doing so.
Click to expand...

Rick, your ability to debate topics while always being a true gentleman never ceases to impress me:thumbup:
 
Strange as it might sound, an "incontestable trademark" is still vulnerable under a host of circumstances.

Becoming "incontestable" eliminates "fair use" and some other defenses, but does not protect against arguments of genericness, functionality, certain prior use circumstances, and some other things.

Whether or not these apply in this circumstance, I don't know and frankly, it seems reasonable for Busse to try to claim a hole in a particular portion of an integral guard on a fixed blade, etc. --assuming that's what has happened ...
It's been a long time since I looked at it, but IIRC, I'm not sure a random judge would see the difference between a Busse hole, Syderco Hole, or regular lanyard hole given a plain reading of the TM.

If it was my mark, I'd prefer it was a little better defined.
It's nice to say, "Hey, I have claim to this whole universe of features because of this really broad language!" but at the same time a really broad mark reads onto a lot of stuff and that dramatically expands the relevant history of prior use, among other things.

Regardless, it seems to me Busse actually does use the hole -- positioned pretty much 'just so' -- on his knives as a trademark and has done so consistently for many years. I don't think he has attempted to curtail the use of thumb-opening holes or lanyard holes, etc.
Maybe it's just me, but in this situation, I wouldn't use a hole in similar position to what Busse does, if for nothing else, out of deference --- even if he didn't have a registered TM.
 
Last edited:
It is illegal and very unethical to steal others copyrights.These are the assets of the manufacturer and should be preserved.In business world these are very important as these gave recognition to the company.Myself being a business manager I strongly discourage such illegal activities.

ip attorneys
 
Last edited:
andimichel said:
It is illegal and very unethical to steal others copyrights.These are the assets of the manufacturer and should be preserved.In business world these are very important as these gave recognition to the company.Myself being a business manager I strongly discourage such illegal activities.
Click to expand...
Andi, nobody is condoning copyright infringement. Welcome to the forums!
 
" Product features are considered “functional” if they are essential to the use or purpose of the product; if they affect the cost or quality of the product; or if they provide a significant “non-reputation-related” advantage. Patent laws, not trademarks, cover the functional aspects of products."


Anyhow, I've always thought that makers work on promoting their image and name rather than specific designs because nearly everything you can come up with is going to be similar to something someone else came up with over the last few thousand years.
 
This is a great discussion, it would be even better if a rep from Busse would chime in...there are examples of 16th/17th century parrying daggers with holes in the ricasso, and plenty of more recent examples...I'm no lawyer but it seems like Busse's trademark would have to be pretty specific as to the size, placement and possibly the functionality of the hole for it to hold water in court.

Legalities aside, the whole idea of them owning the rights to a hole seems absurd when the hole itself is just air, which is not a marketable product as far as I am aware. How can one trademark a feature that consists of air? If I make similar holes and blow some inert gas into them to displace the air, does that make the trademark inapplicable?
 
Last edited:
That is what I was going on about. If the holes were merely a mark to associate with brand then they could be a trademark, but if they are to be made out as a functional bit with a specific purpose that adds an advantage to the product, that would have to be patented. Trademark would not apply. I think its just a matter of no one has been willing to throw money at a lawyer to contest it.
 
In an effort to keep Shop Talk cleaned up a bit, I am moving this to General Knife Discussion.
 
I am often amused by how confused people are about the differences between copyrights, trademarks and patents. Nothing presented in this thread really has anything to do with copyright at all.

There's an interesting article in the current issue of WIRED about patent trolls (people and companies that make money by suing people over patents that they hold) and patents that are too broadly written and too loosely approved. Interesting reading, if you care about the subject. Not saying any knifemakers play this game.

The principle behind patents is that they protect REAL intellectual property. Any idea that would be obvious to someone skilled in the craft of knifemaking, for example, would NOT be eligible for patent protection. Anything that's been around previously (also known as "prior art") would not be eligible for patent protection. Specific knife designs MIGHT be eligible for patent protection, if the thing(s) that differentiate then from existing knives are not totally obvious. The size and shape of a choil, for example, should not be patentable. However, you might be able to patent a mechanism for a self-expanding guard, or some equally clever new twist.

A trademark, on the other hand, is different. Usually a tradmark is usually more akin to a maker's mark. Some have tried to expand it to include the shapes of the things they make. Apple, for example, tried to trademark the shape of the iPhone, suggesting that any phone of rectangular shape with rounded corners and centered speaker and microphone that wasn't theirs violated their trademark. I don't think even with their seemingly endless resources they can protect that broad a definition of a trademark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top