Off Topic Holeless Spyderco Police C07 Clones

DocJD

DocJD

Basic Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
11,696
Recently noted a raft of these at the big auction site , sold from Hong Kong .

Like a donut or bagel , it's the strategically placed empty space that largely defines a Spyderco .

The NO-hole Police , looks weird and soulless like a human portrait with smooth skin where there should be eyes .

At least these clones are very obvious to anyone with any Spyderco knowledge .
 
SpySmasher said:
Spyderco may have to sue settle out of court with them too.
Click to expand...
Yeah . I don't follow these type issues , but IIRC Spyderco has some kind of patent or trademark on the drilling of a round hole in a knife ? :confused:
 
From the Spyderco forum.

"The hole used to be patent protect but the patent has run out. The hole is now trademark protected. The trademark has to be "earned", meaning that trademark has be used by the company consistently over a longer period of time. If Spyderco would make knifes with and without holes, the claim would be weakened. But since all Spyderco knives (with two exceptions that I know of) feature a CIRCULAR hole to open the blade, and nobody else uses that hole without giving credit to Spyderco, the claim is strong. Since the hole was patent protected, nobody could use the hole for 17 years, so Spyderco was able to build a strong claim. This is also the reason why the symbolic fee for the custom makers licencing the hole is so important. While Spyderco licences the hole it does not reliquish the claim to the trademark, since with that symbolic fee, the custom maker acknowledges the claim.

A trademark can be abandoned. If Spyderco would choose not to make knives with a circular hole for a few years anymore, the trademark would soon be considered abandoned and everybody else would be free to use the circular hole as it stands, there is not a single Spyderco folder in production that doesn't have the circular hole."
 
jill jackson said:
From the Spyderco forum.

"The hole used to be patent protect but the patent has run out. The hole is now trademark protected. The trademark has to be "earned", meaning that trademark has be used by the company consistently over a longer period of time. If Spyderco would make knifes with and without holes, the claim would be weakened. But since all Spyderco knives (with two exceptions that I know of) feature a CIRCULAR hole to open the blade, and nobody else uses that hole without giving credit to Spyderco, the claim is strong. Since the hole was patent protected, nobody could use the hole for 17 years, so Spyderco was able to build a strong claim. This is also the reason why the symbolic fee for the custom makers licencing the hole is so important. While Spyderco licences the hole it does not reliquish the claim to the trademark, since with that symbolic fee, the custom maker acknowledges the claim.

A trademark can be abandoned. If Spyderco would choose not to make knives with a circular hole for a few years anymore, the trademark would soon be considered abandoned and everybody else would be free to use the circular hole as it stands, there is not a single Spyderco folder in production that doesn't have the circular hole."
Click to expand...
So , those inscrutable Chinese must be feeling some pressure to at least not violate this particular TM ? Or maybe somebody just ran off a big batch and forgot the thumb hole . :p
 
DocJD said:
So , those inscrutable Chinese must be feeling some pressure to at least not violate this particular TM ? Or maybe somebody just ran off a big batch and forgot the thumb hole . :p
Click to expand...
They probably think if they leave out the hole, then it makes it legal. But really all they have is Spyderco copies without the hole!:confused:
 
jill jackson said:
From the Spyderco forum.

"The hole used to be patent protect but the patent has run out. The hole is now trademark protected. The trademark has to be "earned", meaning that trademark has be used by the company consistently over a longer period of time. If Spyderco would make knifes with and without holes, the claim would be weakened. But since all Spyderco knives (with two exceptions that I know of) feature a CIRCULAR hole to open the blade, and nobody else uses that hole without giving credit to Spyderco, the claim is strong. Since the hole was patent protected, nobody could use the hole for 17 years, so Spyderco was able to build a strong claim. This is also the reason why the symbolic fee for the custom makers licencing the hole is so important. While Spyderco licences the hole it does not reliquish the claim to the trademark, since with that symbolic fee, the custom maker acknowledges the claim.

A trademark can be abandoned. If Spyderco would choose not to make knives with a circular hole for a few years anymore, the trademark would soon be considered abandoned and everybody else would be free to use the circular hole as it stands, there is not a single Spyderco folder in production that doesn't have the circular hole."
Click to expand...
Maybe the need to defend a TM or lose it is why there are so many frivolous seeming legal actions in the knife business ?
 
I'm honestly a bit confused, and not trolling.

A shape can't be trademarked or patent protected, so if there really is no hole, or if this has a nail nick or something else, what could spyderco actually do about it?
 
here: just the pic (let me know if this is ok?, if not, I'll drop it)

s-l500.jpg
 
Many listings for clones that contain specific product or company-specific features have offending bits photoshopped out.

It’s kind of like how companies sell prohibited substances through the use of homonyms to skirt detection, or people on classified-like websites used to sell “massages” for hundreds of “flowers” at a time. Shady practices as a veneer to hide shady businesses, but usually so conspicuous that you wonder how it can really be effective at all.
 
I think it is to make it Germany legal (and in other EU/Asian countries) much like Leatherman made a limited edition Wave/Surge with the OHO Hole absent on the blades :confused:
 
dirc said:
I'm honestly a bit confused, and not trolling.

A shape can't be trademarked or patent protected, so if there really is no hole, or if this has a nail nick or something else, what could spyderco actually do about it?
Click to expand...

Busse has a trademark on the talon hole I believe. It's a hole up front of the handle near the blade
 
dirc said:
here: just the pic (let me know if this is ok?, if not, I'll drop it)

s-l500.jpg
Click to expand...

Even though it's Photoshop, there is still something disturbing about the lack of a hole, aside from the obvious issues of counterfeit knives in general. Yuck!
 
Some websites will Photoshop out knife attributes that are clearly protected property. One example I can think of are pictures of Ganzos with rip off Axis Locks having the locks photo-shopped out. This lets the pictures get posted on Amazon and Ebay in a form that makes it a little harder for them to be reported as clones. To the uneducated eye an Axis Lock or a Spydie hole is a clearly identifiable stolen design element. Without that, one would rely on a description of the knife shape and form and that gets harder for a non-knife person. Nobody ever said these thieves are stupid, just thieves.

If you look closely, the fake Police in the picture also has no lock. That's removed for different, legal reasons. I'm fairly certain if you see one of these POS knife-like-objects in person, it would have a hole and a lock.
 
LastRodeo said:
I would guess that even though the picture shows no hole, they knife you would receive will have the hole.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure if one hand opening knives are illegal to own in China, but I know many vendors on the chinese sites that feature clones edit the pictures of their knife to photoshop out the lock.

This is due to locking knives being illegal to own in China. Maybe the editing of the spydie hole is for similar reasons?
 
This keeps coming up. Consensus is that Chinese manufacturers aren't bound by US Patent and trademark laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top