'Knockoffs' Don't Violate Trademarks, Justices Rule

[James Mattis]

That's the lower-left headline on the front page of the LA Times this morning. It's a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, Wal-Mart Stores vs. Samara Brothers Inc., 99-150, over fashion knock-offs. The money at stake was a lot bigger than the whole sport-utility knife business. The newspaper calls it a "victory for cost-conscious consumers."

The case addresses trademark issues, and not patent or copyright issues.

We can still spit upon POS clones from a great height, figuratively speaking. Unfortunately, it seems that people care about quality and originality are a minority of the knife market, as in many other markets. And maybe if my budget was a whole lot tighter than it is, I would be tempted by that $5 spyderesque knockoff.


------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001

 

[tom mayo]

just like everyone said before, people vote with their pocketbook, and some arent too smart about it...look who's been in the white house for the last 7 years.

------------------
http://www.mayoknives.com

 

[Strider]

And look at the choice's for the next 4 years.
Bob

 

[James Mattis]

I haven't tried to digest the legal reasoning in the decision, but it looks to me like, if "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," then innovative manufacturers just got f...flattered.

------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001

 

[Matt Shade]

People are just cheap these days. They care about quantity and I have more than you do more than they care about quality.Most people anyhow. The trend here bladeforums seems to be quality and quantity

Its too bad the judgement went that way. Think of all the cool stuff we could have if companies worked at developing their own products instead of copying stuff from everyone else and seeing who can make it the cheapest.

------------------
Fix it right the first time, use Baling Wire !

 

[prn]

Yow! This one looks potentially very bad for anyone who incorporates "distinctive" design into their products as part of "trademark". I am not a lawyer but my reading of the linked decision suggests to me that even something like the Spyderco "round hole" may be in jeopardy.

The test seems to be "inherent distinctiveness", or "secondary meaning", i.e., that a feature has acquired the meaning of indicating source. The round hole is mostly taken by us knife knuts as indicating Spyderco, but "unfortunately" it is a functional element in the knife's design and not strictly indicative of the knife being made by Spyderco. I suspect that having licensed the hole to Benchmade for the AFCK and Ascent lines may be a problem too, since it dilutes the "meaning" of the round hole as being Spyderco in the minds of the public at large. (Yeah, right.

)

I'm afraid that this decision just makes it harder to make and keep a distinctive product. I understand that making it harder to own a distinctive product design was part of the intention of the SC, but we'll have to wait and see what kind of design elements can be trademarked as the case law develops. In the meantime, hold onto your holes, Sal!


------------------
Paul Neubauer
prn@bsu.edu
If the odds are a million to one against something occurring, chances are 50-50 it will.