removed from NEW CRK Impofu

al g blenny said:
Nope. I don't "keep" saying fanboy. Said it once. And I was sitting. And I didn't shout.
Click to expand...

Thanks for getting what started out as a great thread throw out of the CRK Forum....!!! CRK does not do many new releases and it is a bid deal for those that like CRK and what they have to offer. The hole was hardly noticed until it was brought up and a big deal was made................. I hate to see what happens next when someone realizes CRK puts an edge on their knives, just like others do.........:rolleyes:
 
Boohoo. This thread is now so hard to find huh? Here's the problem though. You think it's not a big deal, others think it is. I don't know where why you think I'm part of the later group but I'm not. Read my posts. I'm not making a big deal of the hole. Only saying CR knows about it. To be honest, I don't even care for the "Busse Talon Hole". It gets in the way on a few knives and I would prefer it wasn't there.

To say it was hardly noticed is a little presumptuous. Just because it wasn't mentioned right way doesn't mean people didn't see it. I saw it right away and didn't care. I only commented on CR knowing. I find it silly when someone that spends 99% of their time in the CRK sub forum has a canned response like some that were made. Try challenging your automatic responses some time and think about it as if it were reversed. I'll admit I'm a bit of a Busse fanboy but I will be the first to criticize them if it's deserved.
 
al g blenny said:
Boohoo. This thread is now so hard to find huh? Here's the problem though. You think it's not a big deal, others think it is. I don't know where why you think I'm part of the later group but I'm not. Read my posts. I'm not making a big deal of the hole. Only saying CR knows about it. To be honest, I don't even care for the "Busse Talon Hole". It gets in the way on a few knives and I would prefer it wasn't there.

To say it was hardly noticed is a little presumptuous. Just because it wasn't mentioned right way doesn't mean people didn't see it. I saw it right away and didn't care. I only commented on CR knowing. I find it silly when someone that spends 99% of their time in the CRK sub forum has a canned response like some that were made. Try challenging your automatic responses some time and think about it as if it were reversed. I'll admit I'm a bit of a Busse fanboy but I will be the first to criticize them if it's deserved.
Click to expand...

And you know this how, exactly??? :rolleyes:
 
How could anyone confuse it with a Busse? It comes with a sheath!








Haha. Just trying to bring some levity to a thread that has devolved into crk and busse fans yelling at each other.
 
Frankly, I hope CRK Knives challenges the trademark. I have no problem with any company marking their product with a distinctive logo or name or sign or non-functional feature (e.g., a hood ornament on a car). But putting a simple hole in a piece of metal should not qualify as a distinctive mark, no matter if you claim "dibs" on it.
 
Gadfly22 said:
Frankly, I hope CRK Knives challenges the trademark. I have no problem with any company marking their product with a distinctive logo or name or sign or non-functional feature (e.g., a hood ornament on a car). But putting a simple hole in a piece of metal should not qualify as a distinctive mark, no matter if you claim "dibs" on it.
Click to expand...

This, and if the hole provides any functional benefit whatsoever then it's an unenforceable trademark anyhow. It certainly isn't a patentable feature...holes have appeared in the ends of knife guards for hundreds of years, so there's a mountain of prior art that would fight it in that respect anyhow. It's all a bit silly if you ask me. Never really understood the whole uproar over the "talon hole" thing...the spyderhole argument I can understand, but not this...
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
This, and if the hole provides any functional benefit whatsoever then it's an unenforceable trademark anyhow. It certainly isn't a patentable feature...holes have appeared in the ends of knife guards for hundreds of years, so there's a mountain of prior art that would fight it in that respect anyhow. It's all a bit silly if you ask me. Never really understood the whole uproar over the "talon hole" thing...the spyderhole argument I can understand, but not this...
Click to expand...

I thought the function of the hole in the guard was soy you can attach cordage from there to the lanyard loop to help with grip in some way.
 
Sure does ....but its more practical like this


attachment.php



then this


1349276393.jpg
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
This, and if the hole provides any functional benefit whatsoever then it's an unenforceable trademark anyhow. It certainly isn't a patentable feature...holes have appeared in the ends of knife guards for hundreds of years, so there's a mountain of prior art that would fight it in that respect anyhow. It's all a bit silly if you ask me. Never really understood the whole uproar over the "talon hole" thing...the spyderhole argument I can understand, but not this...
Click to expand...
I do not understand where you are coming from on this. The Sypderhole does have function and was at one time patented and is still a Spyderco Trademark. I can see why Busse defends the talon hole as they make so many knives for military contracts that can not have a name or logo on them.
 
u812 said:
I do not understand where you are coming from on this. The Sypderhole does have function and was at one time patented and is still a Spyderco Trademark. I can see why Busse defends the talon hole as they make so many knives for military contracts that can not have a name or logo on them.
Click to expand...

I think that because holes in guards had been around for so long, Busse argued it had no functional and was merely a design feature. I read through some of the trade mark paper work last night and I seem to remember them having to claim it had no function and didn't impede competition in order to get the trade mark. It was denied initially and they had to clarify a bunch of stuff.
 
Scurvy092 said:
I think that because holes in guards had been around for so long, Busse argued it had no functional and was merely a design feature. I read through some of the trade mark paper work last night and I seem to remember them having to claim it had no function and didn't impede competition in order to get the trade mark. It was denied initially and they had to clarify a bunch of stuff.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The Spyderhole makes sense as both a patent and a trademark. The talon hole does not.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Exactly. The Spyderhole makes sense as both a patent and a trademark. The talon hole does not.
Click to expand...

Still, if the USPTO gave Busse a trademark on that hole, they have property rights in it, and also have an obligation to protect their rights (or lose them). I'm not arguing that awarding the trademark was smart or right, but it is what it is.

On the other hand, I don't think it would ever occur to someone who wasn't familiar with Busse knives that the hole was a registered trademark. Chris Reeve can be a crusty curmudgeon but he has a long track record of being an honorable straight-shooter. I predict that this tempest in a teacup will blow over now that everyone's back from Blade.
 
Last edited:
JNewell said:
Still, if the USPTO gave Busse a trademark on that hole, they have property rights in it, and also have an obligation to protect their rights (or lose them). I'm not arguing that awarding the trademark was smart or right, but it is what it is.

On the other hand, I don't think it would ever occur to someone who wasn't familiar with Busse knives that the hole was a registered trademark. Chris Reeves can be a crusty curmudgeon but he has a long track record of being an honorable straight-shooter. I predict that this tempest in a teacup will blow over now that everyone's back from Blade.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, and I think it was a mistake for the USPTO to award it in the first place, but the only authority that the issuance really gave them was the ability to send cease and desist letters with a little more substance to them. I still think the trademark is completely unenforceable and wouldn't hold up in court whatsoever. Most people just want to avoid going to court in the first place since it's a big headache and time/money waster.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Exactly. The Spyderhole makes sense as both a patent and a trademark. The talon hole does not.
Click to expand...

The spyderhole made sense as a patent, but that patent has long since expired. Whether it works as a trademark is debatable though, because trademarks have to do with brand recognition and not functionality. Coca-cola for example, can have their bottle shape trademarked because functionally it is not better than other bottle shapes. The spyderhole would work as a trademark only if you accept that functionally a round hole is no better than an oval or hole openers of other shapes. Personally, I have no issue with spyderco having a trademark on the comet hole for their byrd knives, but functionally I think a round hole is probably the best shape for a hole opener so they shouldn't have a trademark on the spyderhole.

The talon hole wouldn't work as a patent because Busse claims that it doesn't serve any functional purpose, but it works fine as a trademark so long as there are no functional advantages to having a hole in the guard.
 
JNewell said:
I did, which is why I'm convinced that you're adding 1+1+1 and getting 5.
Click to expand...

OK. Thanks for your input.

I think it's a little funny that CR makes a big chopper blade and puts a hole in the guard. I mean that really does scream Busse. At least to those of us into Busse blades. It reminds me of the Busse BME (Battle Mistress Ergo). In the other hand it's not made from INFI so who cares? I don't. Plus there are only going to be 500 of them made. I doubt Busse will peruse it. It might make them look petty to some.
 
If I may chime in to ask for clarification:

I'm not very familiar with Busse designs, not having looked at one for a long time. For that matter, not really familiar with CRK's designs not being interested in a Sebenza, et al (I've seen several though, you'd have to be very disconnected from the knife community not to).

Anyway, some have said that, yes, this talon hole thingie is a registered trademark, etc.

Can anyone tell me what that actually means? By which I mean to ask, what is registered? The shape of the hole? Its size? It's placement on the blade? If I became a knifemaker and make a differently-sized hole in a different place I assume this is not infringement on Busse, no?

Just to clarify, no dog in this fight, don't own any knives from either company. Thanks guys.
 
"The spyderhole would work as a trademark only if you accept that functionally a round hole is no better than an oval or hole openers of other shapes."

Spyderco uses the hole as a trademark by putting it on their fixed blades also.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
"The spyderhole would work as a trademark only if you accept that functionally a round hole is no better than an oval or hole openers of other shapes."

Spyderco uses the hole as a trademark by putting it on their fixed blades also.
Click to expand...

Which is fine for fixed blades, because it's non-functional. On their folders however it's the opening mechanism, which is also fine if they used an arbitrary shape like say, a comet. A round hole however, is arguably the best shape for a hole opener. You can't have a trademark on something that is functionally superior to your competitors, so it's unlikely that the trademark will hold up if anybody cared to seriously contest it. Who knows though, maybe spyderco could make a really compelling case that the round hole opener offers no advantages (aside from reputation and brand recognition) over a comet, oval or whatever else shaped hole opener. Really though, it's a circle, which is already advantageous by being the easiest shape to drill into a knife blade, and I'd also argue that it's also the ideal shape for an opener (your thumb travels in an arc, something an oval doesn't fully account for).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top