Thumb Holes in Knives of Alaska

[J.B]

It is a rather simple tenet of trademark law that a trademark cannot cover a functional product improvement.

"Trademarks include any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. (United States Patent and Trademark Office)"

So a device cannot cover a functional product improvement? This would implement the in the definition named "device" must not have any functions or at least no functional improving ones. Doesn´t a trademarked BMW car grill have any function? Besides the Spyderhole doesn´t need to improve anymore because the patent had expired. Since it has been trademarked it only needs to show "this is a Spyderco knife".

It is especially quirky to trademark a formerly patent protected feature.

Then it must be also quirky to invent things that can be patented if no one else has had the idea before and after it´s patented no one else can use it for 14 to 20 years or so - how quirky.

What is wrong if the company that has used the round hole for many years and thus their knives are recognized by this round hole to be the ones from Spyderco with the well known high quality cannot let others reap the fruits of their long hard work? Instead it would be villainous to let other companies reap the fruits. Others can now use the hole as opening device as long as it is not round because ELUs then would think a knife with a round hole could only be a good Spyderco knife, not for instance a ching chang chong from melted trumpets.

If it would be so quirky to use trademarks, why then they are used for at least over 7000 years and governments support them by officially register them?

Best wishes,
JB

 

[J.B]

..that Spyderco hasn't used on every knife. Why not?
Why are they now putting holes in the fixed blades?

Probably Spyderco now have to put the Spyderhole even on fixed blades because other companies try increasingly to benefit from the excellent reputation of Spyderco knives by looking for small gaps in the trademark or simply trying to ignore it. It seems the higher the pressure in their surviving fight the more it displaces their honor to respect registered rights.

Best wishes,
JB

 

[Boats]

A couple of points:

No one steals BMWs grill because they sue the ever loving crap out of makers who try it.

"Trademarks include any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. (United States Patent and Trademark Office)"

Pray tell how licensing the hole to direct competitors helps in any way to "distinguish" or "indicate the source of goods?" Hint: It doesn't. Companies and individuals license PATENTS to direct competitors absent an exclusivity agreement. The Maxim machine gun is among the more famous examples of a licensed product being made in several countries simulataneously. No one I can identify licenses TRADEMARKS to direct competition, though obviously many do create a market for licensed merchandise in unrelated industrial products and apparel. Name JUST ONE industrial concern that has licensed its actual trademark to a direct competitor for its primary wares. Just one.

So a device cannot cover a functional product improvement? This would implement the in the definition named "device" must not have any functions or at least no functional improving ones. Doesn´t a trademarked BMW car grill have any function?

Here is the key difference. BMW doesn't bitch about anyone else using a grill, only one that mimics theirs. BMW claims no design superiority for their grill, nor is it the easiest to make. BMW's sole concern in the trademarking of that grill is not its function, it is about the styling that they have built up over time to make their products more or less instantly recognizeable to the end consumer. BMW, had they been the first to market with a functional radiator grill and had patented it, could not have made the rest of the industry "grill-less" after the patent expired, claiming that a "frontally located air inlet: was their industry symbol of quality" and that no one else could use a grill unless they located it elsewhere on their car.

That's the whole difference from the Spyderhole aside from the Bavarians suing other corporations and even unauthorized use in video games rather than licensing it out to direct competitors. The formerly patented Spyderhole did not originate solely as product information for the consumer, it was a patent protected better way to open a knife one handed. It is round because, evidently as claimed in promotional literature to this day, the round hole is best, as is also borne out by the licensors and imitators.

Besides the Spyderhole doesn´t need to improve anymore because the patent had expired. Since it has been trademarked it only needs to show "this is a Spyderco knife".

But it doesn't do that. The word "Spyderco" and the Bug did that. This is why the hole coming two decades late to the fixed blades is sort of comical. It's a total CYA move. That Spyderco doesn't have clean hands on any market confusion out there about what the presence of a round hole on a knife actually means in relation as to whether it is a genuine Spyderco or an officially licensed Spyderco competitor, or not, also does violence to its own trademark.

Were Spyderco's trademark vigorously defended, (and the burden is on the holder to do so, not the infringers to attack its validity) there would be no other knives out there on the market with the hole in the "correct" location, fixed or folder.

To my understanding, Spyderco has held the trademark since 1995. Knives of Alaska has been drilling those cleaverish blades a lot longer than the Hossom line has been on the market. Where is the C&D letter to KofA?

 

[J.B]

No one steals BMWs grill because they sue the ever loving crap out of makers who try it.

I assume BMW has a little more capital than Spyderco to pay lawyers. I cannot see where your right should come from to decide how Spyderco has to act about their own rights.

"Pray tell how licensing the hole to direct competitors helps in any way to "distinguish" or "indicate the source of goods?" Hint: It doesn't. .... Name JUST ONE industrial concern that has licensed its actual trademark to a direct competitor for its primary wares. Just one.

First of all AFAIK no (direct competitor) production company is licenced to use it, only knifemakers (BM is a secret special case). Thus I don´t need to name another industrial concern. Licensing does help due to those knifemakers giving credit to Spyderco for licensing the round hole. This shows where this former ingenious design feature and now trademark sign comes from (again BM doesn´t do that which shows they are not officially licened). For example some very well known german knifemakers with very good reputation are licenced from Spyderco and everyone in the scene knows that they are and that it is because Spyderco was and is so kind to do so. ELUs are thankful for allowing the knifemakers to use the round hole because those know the knifemakers are so honorable that they won´t use it without permission. By the way, the same it was with the trademarked Busse hole and at least one german knifemaker. He got permission to do a certain number of his models with Busse hole and after that he did the rest of them without it. Everyone knew where the permission came from and respected it.

Here is the key difference. BMW doesn't bitch about anyone else using a grill, only one that mimics theirs. BMW claims no design superiority for their grill, nor is it the easiest to make. BMW's sole concern in the trademarking of that grill is not its function, it is about the styling that they have built up over time to make their products more or less instantly recognizeable to the end consumer. BMW, had they been the first to market with a functional radiator grill and had patented it, could not have made the rest of the industry "grill-less" after the patent expired, claiming that a "frontally located air inlet: was their industry symbol of quality" and that no one else could use a grill unless they located it elsewhere on their car.

That's the whole difference from the Spyderhole aside from the Bavarians suing other corporations and even unauthorized use in video games rather than licensing it out to direct competitors. The formerly patented Spyderhole did not originate solely as product information for the consumer, it was a patent protected better way to open a knife one handed. It is round because, evidently as claimed in promotional literature to this day, the round hole is best, as is also borne out by the licensors and imitators.

Spyderco doesn´t bitch about anyone using opening holes, only if it mimics their round hole. There maybe was no big design superiority or function in BMW´s grill that they could claim. It just looked different. After all it´s a grill and e.g. has nothing to to do with ergonomics like the round hole that patented or trademarked still fits the human thumb best. Spyderco by trademarking the round hole like BMW claims the special styling which consumers recognize as from Spyderco. They had been the first to use a functional round hole and patented it, could not have made the rest of the industry "hole-less" after the patend expired, claiming that their Spyderhole was their industry symbol of quality and that no one else could use a hole for blade opening in their knives. Only the round hole is trademarked and lately probably the byrdeye shape for Byrd knives (if its not patented), not every hole shape. Where the heck is the difference?

Again you complain about different free decisions of different companies. As I see it, either the companies behave rather simular e.g. about their trademarks or if they don´t act simular e.g. concerning the suing or how they describe the advantages of their products it is because they are free in their decisions about how they use and defend their capital.

But it doesn't do that. The word "Spyderco" and the Bug did that.

Why you don´t say, the BMW grill doesn´t do that. The word "BMW" and the BMW logo did that? Where from do you take the right to decide about how many or which trademarks a free company is allowed to use? Why do you or some others think they have to doubt or to discount decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Are you judges in high court or something like that?

Best wishes,
JB

 

[Boats]

Who am I? No one of great importance.

However, this issue has long interested me, partly because Spyderco's licensing of its ostensible trademark seems so unique across ANY industry one examines.

Look, it was your assertion that the hole indicates a Spyderco product, not me. That argument is undercut by every "special case" and licensing deal out there, whether it is Boker, or Benchmade, some Pakistani POS knock-off, or some wannbe knifemaker dude paying the $50 limited license. Like it or not, Boker and Benchmade are both direct competitors in the arena of production folding knives.

Also, just because it is expensive to defend a trademark is not a valid excuse to not defend it. Failure to defend is one of the grounds to eventually invalidate a trademark when it does finally see the inside of a courtroom.

And I do believe that Spyderco easily outweighs Knives of Alaska on the balance sheets and the cash reserves if a test case is needed. It would be clinically interesting to see the outcome of such a contest.

 

[Boats]

As I and others have noted, the patent and the trademark are distinct things. The oval holes Benchmade has used, the Byrd comet hole, the oddly shaped holes that Frost uses, all these and more were covered under the original patent. That patent has expired, so I have no problem with them.

The trademark deals with one specific iteration of the patent. That particular application was used almost exclusively by Spyderco, to the point that the Jess Horn which did not use it (it used a trapezoid depression which was covered under the patent) is not instantly recognized as a Spyderco.

That is the brand recognition Sal spent over twenty years of his life building. That is what others are seeking to cash in on. That is the part I have a problem with.

I am curious about this last remark in the context of this thread.

Is the assertion that Knives of Alaska is somehow making hay off of the Spyderhole now that they apparently have some folders?

I think it is beyond question that KoA were using it on fixed blades first, and exclusively on FBs until this year, thus having established a different market reality for the circular hole in a particular location.

It cannot be argued that KoA was using a circular hole in order to facilitate the opening of a fixed bladed knife. There is and remains an entirely different rationale behind their usuable sized FB hole as opposed to the TM extension we lately see on Spyderco offerings. In fact, KofA could argue that they have been using finger holes of FBs long before Spyderco extended their wares into that market segment. There is even a TIC argument to be made that they are simply extending their established brand identity in the other direction, capitalizing on the expiration of a certain patent in the folding knife arena.

 

[zenheretic]

Oh fancy seeing Boats entering this discussion. Like a dressed up Brownshoe, it seems.

Trademarks are not patents, why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Boats]

It'd be much more fun on a discussion forum to have two pages of drooling "me toos" and "+1s" and "Yeah man, Knives of Alaska sucks!"

Then, at long last, you could be happy.

Some trademarks aren't worth the paper they were approved upon.

 

[yablanowitz]

The point of that particular comment was this:

THE ROUND OPENING HOLE IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF SPYDERCO!

Sorry to shout, but some people seem a bit slow to recognize that simple fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the validity of that trademark, but their opinions do not affect the reality of the trademark. There are an infinite number of possible shapes to make opening holes. All of them were covered by the original patent, which has expired. All but one (or possibly two by now) are still available for everyone else who makes a folding knife to use freely. Why do they use the round opening hole which is a registered trademark of Spyderco? Since nearly all those holes are being cut by computer controlled machinery, not drilled with a simple bit, it is not ease of manufacture. They use that shape to cash in on the reputation Sal has spent the last twenty-five years building. They do it to make their knives look more like his, using that hole to claim excellence for their product, whether that claim is valid or not.

I am sure that BMW can get a lawyer to write a "Cease and Desist" letter for the price of one of their cars or less. Do you know any lawyers that will do the same for the price of a Delica? Legal processes are not income based. The fact that BMW will sue imitators is not in doubt, but do you really think they could afford to do so if there were as many BMW imitators as there are Spyderco imitators? Especially if their cost was the same in proportion to their gross income as Spyderco's? That would make it...about 750 million per suit, with 50 or so suits going at any given time? Even if they won them all (which they wouldn't) they would be bankrupt very quickly.

As far as Sal licensing out the Spyderhole to rival companies, as far as I know, he did that once, while the patent was still in effect - much as Emerson has licensed the wave feature to him. (I do not consider custom makers to be his company's rivals.) That contract was annulled because the maker in question failed to acknowledge the patent to the degree agreed on. I happen to have one of the knives that were produced by that other company at that time. The licensing was acknowledged on the box, but not on the knife itself. If Sal can stand the expense of putting the Emerson patent numbers on his waved models, I'm pretty sure other companies could afford to acknowledge his registered trademark on theirs.

 

[thefirefox]

Well this sure has riled up quite a few folks hasn't it? I think it speaks to a company's and an individual's integrity to at least acknowledge when they are using another's ideas in their product(s). Have you ever noticed that Spyderco always mentions a Walker style liner lock in their catalogs (as in Michael Walker)? That is class people. I have no problems with using another shape for an opening hole. To directly copy another company's ideas without permission or acknowledgment shows a lack of creativity/integrity. If I'm going to lay down my money for a knife with a round hole you can bet it's also gonna say spyderco on it.

 

[Boats]

And these odes to Spyderco's excellent folders have exactly what to do with Knives of Alaska having used a circular hole on their fixed blade offerings for many years before Spyderco started putting them on their own fixed blades?

Before the line of so far unseen KoA folders with "Spyderholes" came out this model year, was KoA cashing in on Spyderco's innovation by putting a "finger hole" on the Brown Bear skinner/cleaver?

That's farfetched on its face.

 

[zenheretic]

Some trademarks aren't worth the paper they were approved upon.

Ahh the cruxt of the matter.

Which is why you are just like Brownshoe. You both start out with the classic, "I'm a big fan of Spyderco, but..."

Then you take a big steaming dump on Sal and tell him he doesn't qualify for his trademark (in your case) needs to run his business differently (Brownshoe's).

To state your opinion once or twice, even if it is pretty messed up, hey great thanks for stopping by, but you seem to stalk the subject with fanatical enthusiasm.

The only reason you shouldn't reside on the six plane of knife hell with Brownshoe is that Brownshoe is trying to extort free merchandise whilst you just seem to gain some intangible thrill out of telling Sal his efforts have no value.

Give it a bloody rest.

 

[Boats]

I "stalk" the subject because it is always brought up in the most hamfisted and moronic ways.

Now it is Knives of Alaska that has no integrity. It will be someone else tomorrow, evidence of their motivations imputed and damned in the kangaroo court of this subforum without shred one of why a hole appears in their product in a place the holy warriors don't approve of.

Then again, your stalking me makes you the voice of reason. Self righteousness comes in all types of forms.

C'mon zen, show us just one other field of business where companies share registered trademarks without a merger or acquisition taking place.

It shouldn't be too hard, you being a legal expert and all.

 

[zenheretic]

Whatever BrownBoats.

 

[J.B]

C'mon zen, show us just one other field of business where companies share registered trademarks without a merger or acquisition taking place. It shouldn't be too hard, you being a legal expert and all.

I like to give it a try. This is the first example I´ve found in a few seconds:
"Can all my products use the UNIX trade mark?
* UNIX Brand licensees may now for the first time call their products UNIX systems. In order to do this, each product has to be what is called a 'Registered Product' which means that the vendor has specifically commited that the product (or product family) conforms to the specification(s)." (http://www.unix.org/questions_answers.html#1)

Best wishes,
JB

 

[dialex]

America, home of the brave and land of the free... lawyers
You can try to convince me it's legal to use the round hole. But is it moral? What do you think of a company which spends time and money trying you to convince that their (oval) hole is better than the round one, :jerkit: and suddently forsakes their "superior" feature and uses the good old round hole instead? :thumbdn: I'd say it's a direct attack towards Spyderco
Spyderco always allowed custom knifemakers to use their round hole for a symbolic fee. I can understand that not all custom knifemakers have a laser cutter in their workshop. But all reknown knifemaking companies do have the access to a higher level technology. AFAIK they are no longer using drills to make holes in the blades anymore.
You can't claim nowadays that a round hole is cheaper to make than a differently shaped other one. So why choose exactly the round hole? Do other knifemakers / knife designers suddently lost their inspiration? I refuse to believe this, especially seing the beautiful creations some of them conceive every year...

 

[gustavosal]

So--and I tremble at the thought of joining this mess--so no opinions, charges, assertions, aspersions, or shrill shrieking, just some questions:

Does Benchmade pay Spyderco to put the round hole on the Vex, Skirmish, Voodoo, Griptilian 550HG, etc.? If so, how is that an attack on Spyderco?

Second, does Bob Lum pay to put the round hole on his knives, on which the Spyderco Lum Chinese and the Benchmade Voodoo are based?

Thanks in advance,

Gus

 

[Sal Glesser]

Hi Gus,

All we can say regarding Benchmade's useage of the round hole is, "We reached an agreement".

As to everyone esle, it might be time to give it a rest. Too much opinion and too little knowledge.

Spyderco has a trademark on the round hole for a particular location on the blade of a folding knife. We've been doing it for many years.

I have chosen to extend that round hole on all of our knives. This is irrespective of what anyone else does. I believe that the image that we created has caused some envy. Extending the hole to all knives is my way of expanding our image. Regarding other fixed blade knives made by anyone else, we have no authority. It's just my way of "marking my territory" the "old fashioned way".

That was my choice and we will be consistent. We are not saying that Knives of Alaska's finger hole has anything to do with us. None of our holes are large enough to put a finger into. that is their thing and we will, as we always do, respect their thing.

We licenced custom makers to make and sell their knives with our mark. It gave us ideas to look at, and gave them an association with what they perceive to be an honorable company. They are limnited to 50 knives per year and they are not supposed to sell their designs to any other manufacturers. It's a pretty loose arangement based on mutual respect.

I don't think that Boats is trying to spark flames. He has his understanding and his beliefs based on his understandings. He has spoken highly of our products and company many times and it is unfair to mark him (or anyone else) as stalking or trolling, IMO.

sal

 

[gustavosal]

Thanks, Sal. I'm curious since most of my folders are Spydercos and Benchmades, and I also really like the Lum designs I've seen. I think you said it well: it might be time to give this a rest. Me, I'm gonna go cut stuff up...

Gus

 

[Boats]

These will be my last words on this subject in this thread. If folks want to carry on after this, or call me names, that is their business.

First things first. Mr. Glesser is probably unique in this industry in his citation of where other features appearing on his knives come from. Almost everyone who uses a Boye dent on some other brand has no idea how it came to be. Only Spyderco buyers, among ELUs in the mass market are concerned, know why the Boye dent even has a name.

Michael Walker and Al Mar are also credited in Spyderco literature. There are not too many examples of this type of crediting in any industry. Sure, there are columns of small print saying that certain trademarks are the properties of their holders, but the explicit creditation is rare.

Imagine your car, truck, or SUV if its sales promotionals or owners manual credited everything in the car from the "Charles Kettering Electrical Starter," to the "Elmer Berger swiveling rear-view mirror, first pioneered by Ray Harroun in the inaugural Indianapolis 500, who credited the idea to an anonymous horse buggy maker whose rearview mirror equipped carriage he first saw in 1904."

It would get cumbersome and old really quickly.

In most instances, one is lucky to have a screwdriver named for himself, or a suspension strut.

Everyone who cares knows Sal Glesser has been a groundbreaker from the get go. The petty jihads about business morality and business integrity in the very needless attempt to boost Mr. Glesser's status get pretty old in their own right.

My opinions on trademarks are not going to change anything. Neither are yours. Again, I do not know why Spyderco and Benchmade have a secret agreement, but neither do any of you not officially on the inside of the topic.

One would think it would be natural to have some curiousity about the situation. God forbid one speculates however, lest one get called out for dumping a Cleveland steamer on Mr. Glesser and Spyderco.

And the angle I find most amusing about the Tourette's like barking about "integrity and honor" from certain quarters is that there is a 90+% chance that these self-styled purists are doing their work from the ne plus ultra imitative, innovation destroying, idea thieving, and most dishonorably written and marketed software in all of creation--a PC running some flavor of Microsoft Windows.

Nah, business ethics and consumer purity is only for the world of folding cutlery.

Turn off your Windows PC, sell off your IP thieving automobile or motorcycle, no matter who made it, and don the hairshirt full time--or please continue to turn a blind eye to your own hypocrisy in other instances of heretical intellectual property rip-offs for the sake of your own sanity.