I don't understand the round hole trademark

My take on this is that Spyderco patented and trademarked the round hole as an opening device. Any others who use a round hole as an opening device without Spyderco's permission are, in effect, stealing the design. Just my $.02 and YMMV.

Paul
 
Originally posted by PWork
My take on this is that Spyderco patented and trademarked the round hole as an opening device. Any others who use a round hole as an opening device without Spyderco's permission are, in effect, stealing the design. Just my $.02 and YMMV.

Paul
Click to expand...

Paul, the thing is, that argument is one that is proveably irrelevent and flawed. Irrelevent because Spyderco's patent has run out ... unless you're suggesting that against any legal requirements and all conventions, companies should honor this particular patent forever. Flawed, because you say "trademarked the round hole as an opening device". If you've been reading the thread at all, you have seen Dennis's posting that says that trademarks specifically don't cover features that give functional advantage. In fact, if it's found to be functional, the trademark can be invalidated.

The one argument that holds water (but many folks aren't making for some odd reason, choosing instead to ignore Dennis's postings) is that Spyderco trademarked the hole not as an opening device, but as a recognizeable mark of Spyderco knives that does not provide some functional advantage.

Through the course of all this, I've come around to guessing that the design will violate the trademark, and although I personally feel the round hold does provide functional advantage, I don't feel a non-knife person will agree, and so Spyderco's trademark will be upheld, if things get that far. Sal and Les seem to have worked things out before, my real bet is that they will again.

Lastly, I feel that a company should -- no, must -- protect their IP.

Joe
 
Joe, yes the patent has run out, but the trademark stands. Using that trademark without permission is the same as stealing. Again, this is the way I see it. I hope they are able to work it out to both companies' advantage.

Paul
 
Originally posted by PWork
Joe, yes the patent has run out, but the trademark stands. Using that trademark without permission is the same as stealing. Again, this is the way I see it.
Click to expand...

I strongly agree -- unless the trademark violates the functional clause, in which case, it's not stealing at all.

I hope they are able to work it out to both companies' advantage.
Click to expand...

Me too.
 
You know, we can banter this back and forth forever and it won't matter a hill of beans. All the armchair lawyering we want to do won't decide anything. This will be decided between the parties involved, or if it goes that far, by whatever court will make the final determination. I guess it is interesting to speculate, but speculation is all it is.

When I stated earlier that the fact that we do or don't like the idea that Spyderco has a Trademark on a hole will have nothing to do with what happens with this issue, that is exactly what I meant. I suggest we wait to see what happens, because we sure as heck aren't going to determine anything here.
 
Originally posted by shootist16
Think of the implications this case could have on the knife industry. If Spyderco were to lose this, then the door would be opened for other companies to use the hole as an opening feature. I don't think anyone at benchmade is trying to decieve people into thinking it is a Spyderco. I don't think anyone would argue that the hole is functional in nature, which could effect whether a trademark should have been issued in the first place.

I am not a huge fan of the legal system. I think it is often abused. But this is a case that I hope does go forward. I believe the issue needs legal clarification from the courts once and for all. It would be an interesting case to argue for sure.
Click to expand...

I find myself agreeing with this post and several others.

I am a big fan of Spyderco knives. I own at least ten or fifteen of them, and I have two coming in the mail this week, and I bought one last week. I don't consider myself to be an "outsider critic" of Spyderco. I consider myself involved in their commerce and a fair commentator.

I agree that the SPYDER is a trademark (distinguishes the brand) and I also can see the point of view that the hole is identified with the brand, since, what, ALL of their models for a good long time (til the fixed-blades, right?) had a hole in them. CLEARLY that hole told you "SPYDERCO knife!" It was that way for a good long time, right? At least until Benchmade licensed the design (I don't know what year that was).

I personally don't care for protectionism over the use of a hole for opening. Is there a trademark or patent on the thumb stud? Is there one for the OVAL hole? (Didn't Benchmade switch to the oval hole when the license on the round one ran out? Did THEY go and trademark the oval hole?) I just don't see how something as basic as a geometrical shape should ever be patentable, much less trademarkable. It's like saying that you patented the "rod," or the "tube," or the "beam," or the "bar," or the "gear"... you get my point. It's a UTILITARIAN SHAPE. It belongs to HUMANITY, I feel. Cripes, aren't we lucky that someone doesn't have a patent/trademark on the notion of a blade that folds into the handle of a knife?!

As much as I wish to see Spyderco/Sal continue to thrive in the knife business -- since I'm a consumer and lover of their products -- I don't think that others should be kept from being able to use something as basic and important and GOOD as the ROUND HOLE for opening a knife.

---Jeffrey
 
Another question is how this might all apply when looked at other Blackwood designs....

Many of Neil's fixed blades were also decorated with the three-hole pattern, and in these instances, yes, the third hole was larger as well.

It's obvious that Blackwood-Benchmade set out on the 630 project to take after the Blackwood Skirmish custom folder instead of the Curr, which is Neil's thumb-stud opener.

Certainly, as a Spyderco fan, I can see where the opening hole can come under contestation on the Spyderco front, but as a Blackwood devotee, I definitely also see where the design aspect of the 630 -- as well as the original Skirmish -- take after some of Neil's custom fixed-blade designs (i.e. his various Ninjas, etc.), and which preserves the overall proportionality of the holes (in that the third one is slightly larger than the progression) as is evident on those designs.

Allen
aka DumboRAT
 
As an owner of many Spyderco knives, I am one of those that would LOVE to see the opening hole used on some designs invented by companies/individuals other than Spyderco.

It would be impossible for Spyderco to invent all the (at least as I imagine them) perfect knives for me - however, I can think of quite a few knife designs that would benefit from the use of a round opening hole.

OTOH, the trademark issue is a law that must be applied uniformly, whether its knives or widgets that are the issue.

For those of you wondering "how can a hole be trademarked" - well, it is a measure of our intelligence that we can create the mental construct for various scenarios that manage the way we go about defining intellectual property.

I will say this, that the concepts of "originality", "invention", "integrity" are not unique to knife design. Architects have tried for many years to copyright their designs. Although many designs are unique, many components of those designs (like stairs) are not. Thus, it is fairly easy to transpose elements of "orginal" designs into new contexts - thus masking potential "infringement" on the "original" design.

I don't think any of the players involved in the prototype design of the Benchmade 630 can have any illusions that prototype couldn't be considered a trademark infringement, so one can only speculate that that angle has been considered. Until the model is actually released, one never knows what the final product will really be.

If all parties were to consider the "integrity" aspect, it would have seemed appropriate for some communication to occur between the designer(s) and Spyderco - maybe it still will.

One recent issue that comes to mind is the Emerson Wave feature. Unlike Spyderco, Emerson has chosen not to license this feature to custom knifemakers in the way that Spyderco chose to do with the round hole. I don't know if Mr. Emerson has attempted to trademark the Wave feature - it certainly seems like it could be considered distinctive - anyone know about this one?
 
"don't know if Mr. Emerson has attempted to trademark the Wave feature - it certainly seems like it could be considered distinctive - anyone know about this one?"

I believe that feature is patented and vigorously defended.

Mike
 
Originally posted by mumbleypeg

I believe that feature is patented and vigorously defended.

Mike
Click to expand...

I am aware of the patent, I was wondering if he was pursuing a trademark.
 
What about ethics instead of patent and trademark law? I believe Mr. Blackwood has been pretty vocal about someone stealing his designs. There is a thread in the gallery and custom forums on this topic. Given that Mr. Blackwood has already come done hard on people who "copy" his design, isn't it inconsistent for him to take Sal Glesser's thumb hole opening design and use it on a knife, a production knife at that?

I personally believe that Spyderco is stretching it a bit, (i.e. their patent has had its day) and would like to see more hole-opening knives. But having read Mr. Blackwood's statements about people copying his work, I believe he may have some moral discontinuity in his work.
 
brownshoe,
I disagree with you. Neill started using the 3 holes on his knives on "fixed blades" as a decoration long before benchmade put them on this folder being discussed.
 
brownshoe,

You really should know more before writing disparaging remarks about anyone.

Have you talked to Neil or Sal? Do you have anything other than the most minor superficial information? Before writing again you may want to talk to the people involved. I have talked to the people involved. The information you wrote is not close to reality.

Everyone,
Wait until the production knife is released before making comments. This will prevent you from looking like an idiot later.
 
Neil has been using this three hole design on his fixed blades for a long time. I doubt that he even considered the fact that he might be in in violation of a Trademark. To question his ethics because of this is in my opinion pure BS. Brownshoe, you really do seem to have it in for makers.
 
Originally posted by Chuck Bybee
Everyone,
Wait until the production knife is released before making comments. This will prevent you from looking like an idiot later.
Click to expand...
Too late for brownshoe. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by brownshoe
Given that Mr. Blackwood has already come done hard on people who "copy" his design, isn't it inconsistent for him to take Sal Glesser's thumb hole opening design and use it on a knife, a production knife at that?

But having read Mr. Blackwood's statements about people copying his work, I believe he may have some moral discontinuity in his work.
Click to expand...
 
Gentlemen. Lets not digress into a bunch of namecalling and finger pointing. I sincerely believe that Mr. Glesser and Mr. Blackwood are both men of great honor and integrity. The discussion about trademarks is indeed an interesting one, but we should try and keep to a civilized discussion. Lets not let lower ourselves to flaming each other. That is counterproductive. I believe that it was Mr. Glesser who said that "open minds breathe better". I would like to ask that we be open minded and at least attempt to look at it from all sides.

edited to correct my spelling mistakes
 
Shoe's the wrong color, should be brown. -> :footinmou


Does anyone know if "Ho-ho-ho" is trademarked or copyrighted?
I'd like to use it a couple days from now. :D
 
I'm a big fan of both Benchmade and Spyderco's products. With that said I hope that a court battle to determine if the hole trademark is still legal after the 1999 changes to the trademark law was changed. I read over at the Benchmade Forum that they are not ready to announce specifics about the knife yet. Perhaps Benchmade still intends to makes changes to the model prior to going into production? I would also hope that both Les and Sal will discuss this issue and come to some sort of agreement over the hole issue.
 
With apologies to Sal and Spyderco, whose work I own and admire, I could never understand the patent or trademark as to the roundness of the hole. Protect the idea of an opening hole, sure, but the ROUNDNESS of the hole? To me its like trademarking a round tire or a round basketball. Holes are round, end of story.

This is just my personal opinion and I am aware it conflicts with every law on the books. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top