It's Official Cold Steel knocked off Brian Tighes design

[zinn1348]

i have to agree. permit me to veer a bit before making my point...

after a short-lived flurry of posts, the 630 "hole incident" seemed to fade away, with many folks brushing aside the clear patent violation (Sal himself has mentioned his dissatisfaction with BM over this). their reasoning "appeared" to be they weren't going to give up buying/owning BM's because they were of such high-quality, and people couldn't live without their designs.

i did not and will not buy the 630 from Benchmade, in spite of my fondness for its design. if, in the future they do right by Sal & Co. and offer to license the trademark, i will certainly buy one and support the design.

Cold Steel is basically doing the same thing but seems to be receiving much more flack due to their lower quality offerings and over-hyped marketing. does that make it fair? i don't know, but it seems a little hypocritical, IMO.



(i'm not calling anyone out!! -- i'm just comparing general opinion.)

abe

This is a point I've tried to make. Quit rewarding bad behavior!

A lot of people, for whatever reason seem to feel that it's OK to throw their money to the folks who don't do the right thing, whether it is knives, professional sports, or entertainers.

The consumer could do a lot if they'd just hold their money back.


Thomas Zinn

 

[knife saber]

I can appreciate that Neil Blackwood used a distinctive pattern of holes in his fixed blades which he wanted to carry over to his folders, but IMHO, once one of those holes doubles as an opening device, the design infringes on Spyderco's trademark.

Paul

Actually, trademarks cannot be useful. ANY useful device or improvement to a device can only be protected through a utility patent, which in Spyderco's case is known to have expired. So the utility of the hole (being the opening "device" for the blade) is not an issue here.

The only question of law is whether or not the series of holes in the Blackwood resembles the single hole in every Spyderco to such a degree that a judgment of trademark infringement can be made. This is probably why Benchmade didn't consult Spyderco about the affair - multiple holes are sufficiently different from a single hole to make litigation difficult. Function just doesn't play a role here, legally speaking.

 

[Bob W]

While the knives are similar in overall shape and design, I think they're different enough to avoid any legal problems - I'm sure CS took this into consideration before releasing their 'new' design.

The blade shape is similar, not identical. The handle shapes are only vaguely similar. The materials are different. The bottom knife is missing bolsters. The design grooves in blade and handle on the bottom knife, a distinctive feature, are missing fom the top knife. The lock is different.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think there's a case here.

-Bob

 

[Megalobyte]

While the knives are similar in overall shape and design, I think they're different enough to avoid any legal problems - I'm sure CS took this into consideration before releasing their 'new' design.

The blade shape is similar, not identical. The handle shapes are only vaguely similar. The materials are different. The bottom knife is missing bolsters. The design grooves in blade and handle on the bottom knife, a distinctive feature, are missing fom the top knife. The lock is different.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think there's a case here.

-Bob

Bob, did you see this pic though?

 

[Bob W]

That's more similar. But there are still significant and minor differences in the handle (particularly the butt), lock, bolster, and blade.

Yes, it's obviously derivative, assuming no third party has a similar knife pre-dating either of these.
No, I still don't think there are legal issues.

-Bob

 

[NGK-Webmaster]

As I recall, Spyderco (Sal Glesser) patented the hole as an opening device. It was, and is, a significant and previously non-obvious improvement over the nail nick, which was known from way back. Presumably someone invented that too, but by now its origin is lost in the depths of time. The patent on the opening hole expired several (3 or 4) years ago. Sal commented on that fact at the time. Patents run for 17 years and Spyderco has been around longer than that by now.

However, Spyderco also registered the Round Opening Hole as a Trademark, which is different from a patent and which does not expire. The Round Opening Hole was licensed to Benchmade for a period and showed up in the original AFCK as well as in the earlier Ascent series. I don't recall exactly what Sal has said about it, but it appears that the license expired or was renegotiated, as BM replaced the round hole with an oval one.

I can appreciate that Neil Blackwood used a distinctive pattern of holes in his fixed blades which he wanted to carry over to his folders, but IMHO, once one of those holes doubles as an opening device, the design infringes on Spyderco's trademark. If the BM630 had the holes but used a thumbstud as the opening device, it would not, IMHO, have infringed. (Note: my opinions are generally worth approximately what you have paid for them. )

Once a patent is granted, or even applied for, you cannot lose it based on infringement. Damages may be mitigated from the holder ignoring the infringement, but the patent is not lost. A trademark differs from a patent in several ways, and one of them is that a trademark holder must diligently defend the mark or risk losing it. Trade names like "Escalator" have been lost to the public domain for that reason. Others, like "Kleenex" and "Xerox" have been at risk for some time and the owners do try to defend them for exactly that reason. Spyderco cannot afford to ignore something like this.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. On the other hand, I have done enough research on IP to be confident that I am not misstating the above.

Paul

"The Round Opening Hole was licensed to Benchmade for a period and showed up in the original AFCK"

Benchmade put that hole in the AFCK without lic then also, They had to go back and add stickers to the boxes saying it was licensed by Spyderco, Then Benchmade changed it to a oval hole to avoid the problem of lic. it. Just to clear things up Not the 1st time wont be the last.

 

[4 s ter]

Benchmade put that hole in the AFCK without lic then also, They had to go back and add stickers to the boxes saying it was licensed by Spyderco, Then Benchmade changed it to a oval hole to avoid the problem of lic. it.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here. As I understand it, Spyderco licenced the round opening hole to benchmade in the beginning the Benchmade let the licence expire and changed to the oval hole to avoid paying the licencing fee.


Megalobyte - I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. My feeling is (and this is not a threat ) if I punch you in the ear or shoot you in the ear, they are dramatically different in degrees, and you would certainly have a preference - BUT they are both against the law. The law is often a matter of thresholds, not degrees. In my opinion Neil Blackwood and Benchmade crossed the threshold.

Spyderco's policy is to "obtain permission and pay royalties whenever it uses someone else's ideas - even if they haven't been formally patented. The Michael Walker Linerlock and the Mar-McBurnette front lock are significant examples of this" (quoted from "The Spyderco Story"). Some other individuals or companies would do well to follow the same policy of integrity. Those who don't sure won't get my business.

David

 

[shootist16]

No surprise, but looks like M-tech also ripped off the design:

 

[4 s ter]

shootist16

I guess when you're only charging $8.00 to $15.00 per knife it doesn't leave much room to pay designers or royalties

David

 

[shootist16]

shootist16

I guess when you're only charging $8.00 to $15.00 per knife it doesn't leave much room to pay designers or royalties

David

that is very true