- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Messages
- 592
I believe we're talking about trademarks, not copyrights. Here's Spyderco's registration for the thumb hole.
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=74624039
"Description of Mark: The mark consists of the configuration of a portion of the goods, namely a circular through hole formed in the body of a knife blade"
It's a Section 2(f) registration, which means it's based on "acquired distinctiveness". This would suggest that in 1995, Spyderco told the Trademark Office that their use of a circular thumbhole was substantially exclusive - meaning that virtually no one else was using that design at the time. I'm guessing that because they had continuously and exclsively used the design, had pumped a lot of $ into advertising the spyderco hole and had pretty substantial sales, they were able to convince the Trademark Office that the circular thumb hole, which is purely functional and therefore generic, had become distinctive. The public now associated round thumb holes with Spyderco.
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=74624039
"Description of Mark: The mark consists of the configuration of a portion of the goods, namely a circular through hole formed in the body of a knife blade"
It's a Section 2(f) registration, which means it's based on "acquired distinctiveness". This would suggest that in 1995, Spyderco told the Trademark Office that their use of a circular thumbhole was substantially exclusive - meaning that virtually no one else was using that design at the time. I'm guessing that because they had continuously and exclsively used the design, had pumped a lot of $ into advertising the spyderco hole and had pretty substantial sales, they were able to convince the Trademark Office that the circular thumb hole, which is purely functional and therefore generic, had become distinctive. The public now associated round thumb holes with Spyderco.