removed from NEW CRK Impofu

Did anybody ask Reeve if there was a purpose to the hole?
If it has a use, doesn't that negate the trademark aspect?

It seems to me that trademarks are being misused in the industry. They are being used to protect a useful feature indefinitely, rather than for a limited time period, as with a patent.
 
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...
I agree.
 
chiral.grolim said:
I'd like to see the evidence of the centuries old design. In fact, CRK might like to see it for the legal defense if they intend to keep the hole. Other designs have lashing holes situated elsewhere (e.g. Gerber LMFII). CRK could always just move the hole...

Like it or not, Busse has the legal right to defend their trademark.
Click to expand...

This one's a two-for-one! :D Ostensibly these holes do not serve any purpose save decoration.

s1043.jpg


Often seen on swords from the 1700's as an attachment point for a decorative chain knuckle bow.

image.asp
 
According to the link scurvy posted, the trademark hole is in "the rearward portion of the blade."
All drawings & specimen show it to be a round hole in the lower ricasso.

Nothing to do with a finger guard.
 
Scurvy092 said:
Here's the trademark info if anyone wants to do their own due diligence:

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76172212&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=documentSearch

Go to section 6: unclassified.

Starting on page 9 you can rear how Busse's lawyer argues that the talon hole is not functional after it was initially rejected because it was functional and not distinctive.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link!

Yeah...I'm no lawyer, but it looks to me as though if the projection and hole configuration is being marketed as a functional element then it wouldn't be a breach of trademark, especially if the projection is not the usual domed shape that Busse uses. If included on a knife in a non-functionally driven manner on a slab construction knife with integrated guard (as opposed to a separate guard piece etc) and without material and/or a fastener surrounding the hole, then I believe it'd constitute a breach, but not if you designed it that way to open up the possibility of a forward attachment point and guard combination and clearly marketed it as such. Also, if it got taken to court, a judge would be likely to overturn the trademark, methinks. Just because it's been issued doesn't mean that it's untouchable and set in stone--it just tips the odds a little in your favor and makes no guarantees about it.

Just my own conjecture on how it would go down--I could be off by a mile--but that's how I understand these things as working.
 
Also I agree with Stabman--the hole looks dumb on the CRK anyhow. If there was at least a forward-facing hole on the pommel as well it might visually make sense but it just kind of looks awkward as is.
 
vlgd said:
You can trademark colors, actually. For example, Cadbury has a trademark on a particular shade of purple so you can't sell chocolate using the same colored packaging. Likewise, Tiffany's owns a shade of blue/turquoise, UPS has their signature brown trucks, and Home Depot has their orange among other companies having various colors trademarked. This doesn't mean that they actually own the color per se, just that you can't use the same color for your advertising, packaging, etc. etc. if you're a trade competitor.
Click to expand...

I didnt know that, and im glad you mentioned it, i've been using the color orange for things since i was a kid 40 years ago. I think i'll collect on my trademark now and make a fortune.

The mcdonalds yellow M is a trademark. A hole in a knife guard isnt a trademark. It's called a lashing hole, and it's been around forever. Even owning the trademark, i think Busse will lose in an court battle.
 
Douglas Thor said:
I didnt know that, and im glad you mentioned it, i've been using the color orange for things since i was a kid 40 years ago. I think i'll collect on my trademark now and make a fortune.

The mcdonalds yellow M is a trademark. A hole in a knife guard isnt a trademark. It's called a lashing hole, and it's been around forever. Even owning the trademark, i think Busse will lose in an court battle.
Click to expand...

With Cadbury it's the specific hue of purple--pantone 2685C, or hex code #3B0084. Which is this:

cadcol.png


And the trademark only applies to chocolate products. Other competing manufacturers can even still employ the use of purple hues so long as it isn't "the predominant colour applied to the whole visual surface" of the packaging. Also, they had to fight 8 years to secure the trademark, and in part they only won it on account of it having been a significant and consistent part of their branding since 1914.
 
mtangent said:
Did anybody ask Reeve if there was a purpose to the hole?
If it has a use, doesn't that negate the trademark aspect?

It seems to me that trademarks are being misused in the industry. They are being used to protect a useful feature indefinitely, rather than for a limited time period, as with a patent.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't know exactly why Chris Reeve copied the hole, but I'm sure he has valid reasons for doing so. The only thing the trademark should be preventing is other people copying it in order to have a knife that looks like a Busse, and somehow I don't think that's the reason Chris Reeve chose to put a hole there.

I'm all for trademarks and patents, but it feels like they're being abused by the knife industry. Axis locks might be synonymous with Benchmade, but in a couple of years the patent will expire and everybody will be able to legally copy the lock design, and that's a good thing because that's how progress is made. Rewarding innovation is great, but Benchmade's already profited from it for well over a decade. Personally, I can't wait for the day that axis locks or compression locks replace linerlocks and framelocks as the industry standard, but that will never happen if companies continue to fool the USPTO into changing their patents into trademarks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top