Don't see a need to apologize yet. Pretty clear to me that Spyderco doesn't want others to use their hole. From the Blackwood website, it appears he uses a hole opener. Maybe he has permission from Spyderco, like AT Barr, Anso, etc. If so, then I'll gladly apologize.
-
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.
I don't understand the round hole trademark
- Thread starter hardheart
- Start date
personallyone ofthe only things I like about spyderco is opening hole if they lost that I think you'd see other makers with it almost imediatly and I'd probably be buyingthem that way.
Right now many associate the axis lock with BM but they can't trademark it so I don't think spyderco should be able to keep their's either. Just my opinion!
There are only somany ways to open a knife and there are only so many ways to put grip on a handle... Why does spyderco think they own the rights to everthing...you don't hear about BM bashing SOGs arch lock or crying about people using the morise code pattern on their balis. What's the big deal??? (this is a retorical question)
Right now many associate the axis lock with BM but they can't trademark it so I don't think spyderco should be able to keep their's either. Just my opinion!
There are only somany ways to open a knife and there are only so many ways to put grip on a handle... Why does spyderco think they own the rights to everthing...you don't hear about BM bashing SOGs arch lock or crying about people using the morise code pattern on their balis. What's the big deal??? (this is a retorical question)
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,101
well then the axis lock shall be trademarked as well, b/c it is benchmade's identity.
This thread is way out of control if you ask me. The freaking knife hasn't even been released yet! I am with the belief that I have no idea how one can patent and trademark a "round" hole anyhow! WHat if the "triangle" that is ground on an edge of a piece of steel was patent and trademarked? How come the thumbstud isn't protected by someone? There are only so many ways to open a knife, I think it is unfair for one company to think they can keep others from using one method or another only because they applied for and was granted a P&T by a bunch of sheeple anyway!
And as for Brownshoe, there is a BIG difference in copying someone's design and calling it your own then from what is being discussed here. You DO owe Mr. Blackwood an apology.
Dennis
And as for Brownshoe, there is a BIG difference in copying someone's design and calling it your own then from what is being discussed here. You DO owe Mr. Blackwood an apology.
Dennis
Sal Glesser
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 27, 1998
- Messages
- 11,678
Hi guys. Since this thread is supposed to be a question of "understanding", rather than an argument between laymen, I will try to shed light using the examples cited.
Can Benchmade trademark the Axis lock?
Can Emerson trademark the wave?
Both the "funtions" of the Wave and Axis lock are protected under patent law at this time and the "funtion" of the lock or Wave opener cannot be trademarked, but in time, the "look" can.
I am not a lawyer and I cannot guarantee that the following can occur. The examples are for explanation purposes only.
The appearance of the Axis lock is a horizontal slot in the handle with a button overlapping the slot. The slot is towards the front of the handle of the knife.
There are other locks that are composed of slots with buttons overlapping the slot, but not in a horizontal or parrallel location. SOG's arc lock (which is much closer in patent to the Rolling lock than the Axis lock) has a curved slot almost vertical or perpendicular to the handle with a button overlapping the slot. The new Benchmade Rolling lock has a similar curved slot with a button overlapping the slot. They are all lock releases, but the Arc and Rolling lock releases look different from the Axis. If no one makes a knife that with a lock release that looks like the axis for many years (10+), and the horizontal slot becomes something that just "looking at" tells you that it's a Benchmade, then Benchmade can probably apply for trademarks to ptotect that "look".
The same applies for Ernie's "Wave". The "function" of the Wave can be achieved with an elongated or specially shaped stud(s) or with a disc that has horns or hooks in front (not part of the blade and probably patentable at this time) or with a "Kinetic" opener like Bram Franks Gunting, or a row of serrations on the spine that are aimed forwards, etc. I think you can get my drift. The "funtion" of opening a knife while accessing it from the pocket can be achieved in a number of diffeent shapes. If nobody uses anything that "looks" like the wave so that just seeing a "wave" on the blade of a folding knife tells you automatically that it is an Emerson, then Ernie could probably apply for a trademark for the "look" of that "wave" shape on the back of the spine of the blade.
It takes many many years of constant and consistant use of a "look" that nobody else "looks" like to be able to apply for a trademark to protect that look.
The issue of "function" is not an issue. When Gerber was licensing a hole opener from Spyderco (mid 90's), they elected to use a "bean" shaped hole saying that it worked JUST AS WELL in "funtion" as the round hole and it also gave them an identity that was different from Spyderco.
When Benchmade went from licensing our round hole to an oval hole, they claimed that the oval hole was superior to the round hole in "funtion". I don't know if it is superior, but we can probably agree that Benchmade felt it worked as well.
Clearly both Gerber and Benchmade are experts in the knife industry and both clearly indicated that the "function" was in the presence of a hole rather than the shape of the hole.
The "Round Hole" is already trademarked. The "funtion" question was clearly explored by experts and is all a matter of record. You can look it up. Spyderco is not trying to hide anthing here.
I hope that helps with your understanding.
We also wish you a Great Christmas and we hope you get lotsa knives.
sal
Can Benchmade trademark the Axis lock?
Can Emerson trademark the wave?
Both the "funtions" of the Wave and Axis lock are protected under patent law at this time and the "funtion" of the lock or Wave opener cannot be trademarked, but in time, the "look" can.
I am not a lawyer and I cannot guarantee that the following can occur. The examples are for explanation purposes only.
The appearance of the Axis lock is a horizontal slot in the handle with a button overlapping the slot. The slot is towards the front of the handle of the knife.
There are other locks that are composed of slots with buttons overlapping the slot, but not in a horizontal or parrallel location. SOG's arc lock (which is much closer in patent to the Rolling lock than the Axis lock) has a curved slot almost vertical or perpendicular to the handle with a button overlapping the slot. The new Benchmade Rolling lock has a similar curved slot with a button overlapping the slot. They are all lock releases, but the Arc and Rolling lock releases look different from the Axis. If no one makes a knife that with a lock release that looks like the axis for many years (10+), and the horizontal slot becomes something that just "looking at" tells you that it's a Benchmade, then Benchmade can probably apply for trademarks to ptotect that "look".
The same applies for Ernie's "Wave". The "function" of the Wave can be achieved with an elongated or specially shaped stud(s) or with a disc that has horns or hooks in front (not part of the blade and probably patentable at this time) or with a "Kinetic" opener like Bram Franks Gunting, or a row of serrations on the spine that are aimed forwards, etc. I think you can get my drift. The "funtion" of opening a knife while accessing it from the pocket can be achieved in a number of diffeent shapes. If nobody uses anything that "looks" like the wave so that just seeing a "wave" on the blade of a folding knife tells you automatically that it is an Emerson, then Ernie could probably apply for a trademark for the "look" of that "wave" shape on the back of the spine of the blade.
It takes many many years of constant and consistant use of a "look" that nobody else "looks" like to be able to apply for a trademark to protect that look.
The issue of "function" is not an issue. When Gerber was licensing a hole opener from Spyderco (mid 90's), they elected to use a "bean" shaped hole saying that it worked JUST AS WELL in "funtion" as the round hole and it also gave them an identity that was different from Spyderco.
When Benchmade went from licensing our round hole to an oval hole, they claimed that the oval hole was superior to the round hole in "funtion". I don't know if it is superior, but we can probably agree that Benchmade felt it worked as well.
Clearly both Gerber and Benchmade are experts in the knife industry and both clearly indicated that the "function" was in the presence of a hole rather than the shape of the hole.
The "Round Hole" is already trademarked. The "funtion" question was clearly explored by experts and is all a matter of record. You can look it up. Spyderco is not trying to hide anthing here.
I hope that helps with your understanding.
We also wish you a Great Christmas and we hope you get lotsa knives.
sal
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 8,968
I believe I have gained a better understanding of why the hole was able to be trademarked through the statements of several here, summed up well by Mr. Glesser. I understand Spyderco's wish to differentiate their product, but I also hope it doesn't hinder the designs of men like Mr. Blackwood. Hopefully a solution of benefit to all interested knife enthusiasts will be reached.
Sal Glesser
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 27, 1998
- Messages
- 11,678
Hi Hardheart. Glad to be able to help.
Personally, I think Mr. Blackwood's design would have been equally awesome, if not more so with oval shaped holes. Especially if the same oval treatement was carried in the handle. The CNC's do not know the difference, there would have been no arguement as to round hole questions. The knife could be successful, Benchmade would make money and the ELUs would get a beautiful piece.
With round holes, it does present some problems.
sal
Personally, I think Mr. Blackwood's design would have been equally awesome, if not more so with oval shaped holes. Especially if the same oval treatement was carried in the handle. The CNC's do not know the difference, there would have been no arguement as to round hole questions. The knife could be successful, Benchmade would make money and the ELUs would get a beautiful piece.
With round holes, it does present some problems.
sal
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2000
- Messages
- 15,401
Sal,
Thanks for the explanation. I better understand the trademarking of the hole. But I have one question.....what if a maker designs a knife with a hole, any shape, but decides that a round hole is better suited to the overall aesthetics of the knife? Would he still apply for a license to use the hole?
Thanks for the explanation. I better understand the trademarking of the hole. But I have one question.....what if a maker designs a knife with a hole, any shape, but decides that a round hole is better suited to the overall aesthetics of the knife? Would he still apply for a license to use the hole?
Sal Glesser
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 27, 1998
- Messages
- 11,678
Hi Ken, we will currently license custom makers to make up to 50 knives per year. They cannot sell their designs to factories for production.
There are enough different shapes that can be designed into a knife blade that options are available.
sal
There are enough different shapes that can be designed into a knife blade that options are available.
sal
- Joined
- Dec 25, 1998
- Messages
- 7,394
I sincerely hope that no one thinks I am flaming anyone or trying to start any trouble. I have thought long and hard about posting anything else on this thread for the fear that it may appear as such.
For those that don't know we are based on precedent here. We go by what the highest court that has heard the case says. Laws can also change as they did in 1999 with the Lanham Act and the Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act, also 1999. I believe Spyderco's trademark was granted before the changes and clarifications were made, but I could be wrong.
I am NOT stating my opinion here, but would like to qoute some recent court cases on the issue. I have included the case names and courts so please feel free to look them up. Again, I am posting these for discussion purposes only. Lets try and keep this civilzed.
In Eppendorf-Netheler-Hinz (5th Circuit, 2002), product trade dress in disposable pipette tips were held to be functional. Ritters tips were substantially identical in design and were even marketed as a direct replacement. Eppendorf relied on evidence that many different designs could be used to produce a pipette that functioned well and did not look like Eppendorfs. The Fifth Circuit court held this irrelevant; the evidence conclusively established that the elements claimed to constitute the trade dress served a functional purpose.
Another court case Value Engg Inc vs. Rexnord Corp(Fed. Cir. 2002) says that a court may still consider the existence of alternative designs in deciding whether a design is functional; but having found that it is cannot give trademark protection to a functional design merely because there are alternative designs available.
Clicks Billiards, Inc. vs. Sixshooters Inc. (9th Circuit, 2002) the court states trade dress cannot, however, be both functional and purely aesthetic.
TrafFix Devices Inc. vs. Marketing Displays Inc (U.S. Supreme Court, 2001) considered functionality in the context of a trade dress comprising a formerly patented, dual spring mechanism for temporary road signs. The 6th Circuit had previously held that the availability of spring mechanisms that would function equivalently, but looked different, raised a fact issue to non-functionality. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned that finding that the dual spring design was functional as a matter of law, holding that the availability of functionally equivalent, alternative designs of differing appearance was immaterial and did not raise an issue of fact.
*edited to correct spelling errors.
For those that don't know we are based on precedent here. We go by what the highest court that has heard the case says. Laws can also change as they did in 1999 with the Lanham Act and the Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act, also 1999. I believe Spyderco's trademark was granted before the changes and clarifications were made, but I could be wrong.
I am NOT stating my opinion here, but would like to qoute some recent court cases on the issue. I have included the case names and courts so please feel free to look them up. Again, I am posting these for discussion purposes only. Lets try and keep this civilzed.
In Eppendorf-Netheler-Hinz (5th Circuit, 2002), product trade dress in disposable pipette tips were held to be functional. Ritters tips were substantially identical in design and were even marketed as a direct replacement. Eppendorf relied on evidence that many different designs could be used to produce a pipette that functioned well and did not look like Eppendorfs. The Fifth Circuit court held this irrelevant; the evidence conclusively established that the elements claimed to constitute the trade dress served a functional purpose.
Another court case Value Engg Inc vs. Rexnord Corp(Fed. Cir. 2002) says that a court may still consider the existence of alternative designs in deciding whether a design is functional; but having found that it is cannot give trademark protection to a functional design merely because there are alternative designs available.
Clicks Billiards, Inc. vs. Sixshooters Inc. (9th Circuit, 2002) the court states trade dress cannot, however, be both functional and purely aesthetic.
TrafFix Devices Inc. vs. Marketing Displays Inc (U.S. Supreme Court, 2001) considered functionality in the context of a trade dress comprising a formerly patented, dual spring mechanism for temporary road signs. The 6th Circuit had previously held that the availability of spring mechanisms that would function equivalently, but looked different, raised a fact issue to non-functionality. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned that finding that the dual spring design was functional as a matter of law, holding that the availability of functionally equivalent, alternative designs of differing appearance was immaterial and did not raise an issue of fact.
*edited to correct spelling errors.
Sal Glesser
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 27, 1998
- Messages
- 11,678
Hi Dennis. I do not believe that you have all of the facts. I do not believe that you have all of the history. I tried my best to explain the confusion of the question. I appreciate your post graduate work, but I am personally not interested in further discussion. Thank you.
I imagine you will carry on your "further discussion" with those that are interested. Over & out.
sal
I imagine you will carry on your "further discussion" with those that are interested. Over & out.
sal
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2000
- Messages
- 4,090
Originally posted by Knife11
I think Sal is getting his panties in a bunch over this!
That is uncalled for!
I don't blame Sal for being concerned; this is his company and his ideas we are discussing! I would be furious if I was in his position! Let's see what the actual production model looks like before we start jumping to conclusions about anything!
- Joined
- Dec 25, 1998
- Messages
- 7,394
I understand Sal's concern. It is his company and his invention. He was involved in getting the trademark and obviously has more info than I. I just think it is interesting to look at the dynamics of the whole trademark issue from both sides. Who would have thought there were so many intricacies to one issue? It seems like trademarks would be a simple thing. Anyway, it was never my intention to upset anyone. I merely wanted to articulate another side. I think it is important to look at things from different perspectives, whether we agree with them or not. I never said that I think Spyderco should lose its trademark, I just wanted to post some facts from another perspective. I don't plan on posting any more about the subject. Its getting too hot and it is upseting people that I respect and care about.
Sal I am sorry, I have the utmost respect for you and Spyderco knives, but I have had a problem with this trademark from the very beginning. A round hole is just to integral to the design and function of so many knives that for someone to be granted a trademark for it is simply in my mind ludicrous. Round holes are found all over knives in many places and to provide functionality in different ways. Think what would have happened if your predecessors had trademarked in this manner. There would be NO Spyderco. Thats all I have to say as well on this manner other then I hope it works out for Blackwood knives, Benchmade, Spyderco and last but not least US, the consumers, as we are the ones who truely suffer from such actions.
Dennis
Dennis
Ok I understand that Spyderco has a trademark on the hole in the blade of their knives. Now from the pics that I have seen of the BM hole it seems to have a very deep chamfer on the edge of the hole which spyderco does not put on their holes. So to be a trade mark infrigment does the hole have to be exactly like spyderco is using?
- Joined
- Sep 30, 1999
- Messages
- 4,229
Originally posted by Knife11
I think Sal is getting his panties in a bunch over this!
Really uncalled for and disrespectful. Sal Glesser has done a LOT for the knife carrying world.
Was the first to put the clip,opening hole,and serrations on the same pocket knife.
Sends free knives to our troops.
Sent free knives to rescuers at Ground Zero.
Gives knife forums first pics at new models and participates in discussions.
Owns the company and is concerned over a trademarked item(if the trademark isnt right, the courts will decide, but for right now it's trademarked), cant blame him for that. Also cant blame him for not wanting to discuss legal issues online.
That remark was way out of line. No class.
And for the record I only own one Spyderco knife, the D'Allara with WTC steel that was a gift from a friend who knew I knew P.O. D'Allara. So I am not a Spyderco groupie.