Mantis Knives Using Round Hole Opener

There was a bit of discussion about this on Spyderco's website forum. I e-mailed the company about this, and have not gotten a reply. Aside from that, it will take a bit more than their use of the spyder hole to make me like the designs.
 
I saw the Mantis booth at Blade and my first thought was (albeit from afar) wow, a new company with Spyderco's permission, some neat designs, and neat finishes. THEN, I found out that the handles and locks were aluminum, the steel sucked, they ripped off the hole, and the people behind the counter were definately not of the same calibre as the Spyderco crew.
Matt
 
Sal should SUE THAT ASS. That's blatant trademark infringement. Sic the lawyers on 'em and run those jerks out of Dodge. Assuming of course that they didn't come to an arrangement with Spyderco ahead of time.
 
Does the hole offer a functional advantage?

The Spyderco Trademark Round Hole is the industry symbol of quality. It is our most recognizable feature and facilitates easy opening and closing of our knives with one hand. The hole offers convenient access and maximum control while opening as well as accommodating large, small and gloved hands. The position of the hole in the blade and the fact that it is round allow for a continuous opening motion. The thumb rests against the hole at a comfortable distance from the palm permitting easy rotation from the pivot point.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#6

Under some circumstances, trademark protection can extend beyond words, symbols, and phrases to include other aspects of a product, such as its color or its packaging. For example, the pink color of Owens-Corning fiberglass insulation or the unique shape of a Coca-Cola bottle might serve as identifying features. Such features fall generally under the term "trade dress," and may be protected if consumers associate that feature with a particular manufacturer rather than the product in general. However, such features will not be protected if they confer any sort of functional or competitive advantage. So, for example, a manufacturer cannot lock up the use of a particular unique bottle shape if that shape confers some sort of functional advantage (e.g. is easier to stack or easier to grip). Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 115 S. Ct. 1300 (1995).
 
registrationsucks said:
Does the hole offer a functional advantage?
Click to expand...

No, it's a matter of preference. All openers work as well as the other, and many people have preferences to disks and studs over the round hole. This argument is moot. The hole belongs to Spyderco, and rightfully so.
 
registrationsucks

While many of us (and Spyderco too) may feel there is a functional advantage to the round hole, other knife manufacturers don't seem to agree. They have used other shaped holes (oval for example) and argued that those shapes are as good or better. Therefore, when arguing that issuance of a trademark is justified (i.e. it does NOT confer a functional or competitive advantage) Spyderco can (has?) used the postions of these other companies to argue that there is, in fact, no advantage.

The bottom line however is that the answer to your question has already been answered - when Spyderco was granted the trademark. I'm sure that the US Patent and Trademark Office didn't forget to ask that question, and decided "NO".
 
4 s ter said:
registrationsucks

While many of us (and Spyderco too) may feel there is a functional advantage to the round hole, other knife manufacturers don't seem to agree. They have used other shaped holes (oval for example) and argued that those shapes are as good or better. Therefore, when arguing that issuance of a trademark is justified (i.e. it does NOT confer a functional or competitive advantage) Spyderco can (has?) used the postions of these other companies to argue that there is, in fact, no advantage.

The bottom line however is that the answer to your question has already been answered - when Spyderco was granted the trademark. I'm sure that the US Patent and Trademark Office didn't forget to ask that question, and decided "NO".
Click to expand...

Trademarks can, and have been incorrectly given, and later taken away. There are many court cases you can browse and see where trademarks were upheld or removed.

There are three types of functionality you can read about here if you are interested:

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_03.html

I feel the hole is somewhere between de jure and de facto functional; however, if you read this link ( http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3655/is_200401/ai_n9385371/pg_22 ) you can see that the Trafix case has put functional trademarks in a state of flux due to different interpreations.

It is interesting that the test the fifth and second circuit courts are applying because of Trafix is whether the design is functional, and now there is no need to worry about alternatives or competitive advantage. From my reading, it seems obvious the hole would be functional under this interpretation.

I wonder how the tenth circuit is interpreting Trafix. Maybe there will be a final ruling by the supreme court soon.

Any knife-nut lawyers/law students have an opinion?
 
J85909266 said:
No, it's a matter of preference. All openers work as well as the other, and many people have preferences to disks and studs over the round hole. This argument is moot. The hole belongs to Spyderco, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

Many people do have preferences to disks/studs over a round hole, but these openers do not all obviously work at the same level.

You would be better off arguing that the hole, oval, and byrd comet are all identical in operation, and that the round shape does not offer a competitive advantage over the others.

Do you see why?
 
I see where you are coming from, but the point of the hole is to open the knife with on hand, which can be done just as easily with a stud or disk, at least in my experience. I simply don't see how you could prove that a hole works so much better than a stud that you couldn't lawfully patent it.
 
Wow. IMHO, it is all rather irrelevant. Im pretty sure they are not gonna suddenly overtake spyderco with the mall nnja karambits they are rolin with. I would actualyl like to see sal just brush this one off. So what, they took the hole. big woop, when they start getting major props (LMAO, >if< that happens) for it, then he can take them down. For now I say leave em alone, Spyderco doesnt need to turn into lawsuit happy greed freaks who want thier paws on every last penny. Lord knows they get enough money from us anyways ;) I just think this is all over a rather irrelevant problem. Spyderco is an awesome knife company with good standards. Lets not turn them into friggen corporate money loving blood sucking peoples k? K, thanks.
EDIT: LMAO!!! 420HC Steel. I HIGHLY doubt they will get past the uninformed/young newbie market. "That roight thur is some gewd steal, mkay?"
SS
 
Gerber and S&W outsell Spyderco. These are exactly the kinds of knives that sell to the typical knife buyer. A cheap knife that looks cool. I'm not saying they should take them to court, but it's worth a mention at the least. I mean, it is Spyderco's patented hole. Sal is even putting it on fixed blades because he wants the hole associated with his knives. And rightfully so, the man did invent one handed opening, afterall.
 
Well, he may have invented it by hole, but I was "Spyderdropping" a Buck 110 in the seventies. And I STILL think Shakespear was right, we need to kill all the lawyers.
 
registrationsucks said:
Any knife-nut lawyers/law students have an opinion?
Click to expand...

Yes. You've proceded to the point where this belongs in a Law Forum not a Knife Forum. You've impressed everyone with your legal terminology, but to what end? This really isn't the forum to argue how one could possibly "loophole" Spyderco's trademark.
 
SIRGALANT said:
just seems like another dorkops to me
Click to expand...

Yes.
mf4cm.jpg
 
Benchmade has made a knife with a round hole. They've got other holes in the blade, but the biggest one opens the knife. Spyderco knows about this cheapo product since they were at Blade. However patents protected the hole, I think spyderco knows it's trying to push the envelope with the TM stuff, it looks like it may not work.

By the way, I like the law assessment and think it belongs here. I believe the round hole is more functional than other types of opening holes, studs and disks, it may even cheaper than a stud or disk. Patents have an expiration date for a good reason, most people don't argue the question when their daily drug goes generic and drops to 1/5 its former price.
 
not only does the blade opening hole appear Spyderesque, but the profile of the upper part of the blade looks almost Dodo-esque as well

i believe a Cease-And-Desist from Spyderco would be appropriate here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top