Why are Spyderco knives so ugly?

there doesn't seem to be much variety in their models, a lot look the same is my issue with spyderco. I have several and they slice very well but not my favorite knife maker
 
Another Shepherd said:
Ugliest knife I have ever seen:
sp_C217GP__15503.1529006546.jpg

Spyderco C217GP Caribbean Salt
Click to expand...



I used to agree, but I learned to forgive its utilitarian looks (optimal visibility under water), because my version - the serrated edge sheepfoot model - is an absolute cardboard destroyer, the best weed and aquatic plant destroyer and so on. The thing is unstoppable. Out of all serrated Spyderco knives, the serrations are the best on the Caribbean. They are not too toothy, they won't snag.
 
sgt1372 said:
Just consistency of practice.

While failing to drill a hole in a fixed (or other) Spydeco may not put Spyderco's trademark at risk, it is a simple matter of drilling a hole in all Spyderco knives to that "not" having one in a specific knife never becomes a "lack or failure of use" trademark issue.
Click to expand...
You might be right but since any risk to Spyderco's trademark is negligible that would be a pretty poor reason to do something to a knife that (1) adds manufacturing expense, (2) weakens the blade, (3) creates a place for gunk and germs to collect, (4) is ugly (IMO) and (5) negatively impacts sales (I can only speak for myself but the hole is the reason I've never bought a Spydie fixed blade). 😕
 
kobold said:
I used to agree, but I learned to forgive its utilitarian looks (optimal visibility under water), because my version - the serrated edge sheepfoot model - is an absolute cardboard destroyer, the best weed and aquatic plant destroyer and so on. The thing is unstoppable. Out of all serrated Spyderco knives, the serrations are the best on the Caribbean. They are not too toothy, they won't snag.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I have a serrated Atlantic Salt sheepsfoot in LC200N that, out of the box, would slice paper nicely if I could keep the paper in the same serration. But it is the worst knife I've ever had for cutting cardboard, weeds, rope, padded Amazon envelopes, garden hose, and so on. It has long, sharp teeth and does nothing but snag and tear. At least it's a fairly pleasant green that does not hurt my eyes.

If I bought one of those yellow-and-black-striped models, my wife would divorce me.
 
You answered you own question, they’re made for the hand not the eye. According to Sal, that was the plan.
 
Bigbobg said:
You answered you own question, they’re made for the hand not the eye. According to Sal, that was the plan.
Click to expand...

Some of those PM scales appear to have mighty sharp edges. Never handled one but I'm curious if they hurt.
 
To address the discussion of trademark above, as I understand it, it's not a trademark per se, it's a Spyderco design patent. The rules are much stricter for maintenance of a design patent and it has to be used essentially across the entire product line, otherwise it's not considered an essential part of the product; whereas a trademark only should be in continuous use in one or more items in a product line.
 
Wardo46 said:
You might be right but since any risk to Spyderco's trademark is negligible that would be a pretty poor reason to do something to a knife that (1) adds manufacturing expense, (2) weakens the blade, (3) creates a place for gunk and germs to collect, (4) is ugly (IMO) and (5) negatively impacts sales (I can only speak for myself but the hole is the reason I've never bought a Spydie fixed blade). 😕
Click to expand...

The only way to defend the trademark for the "Trademarked Round Hole" is to use it, even where it's not necessary. That's the only reason they were able to effectively perpetuate their utility patent using a trademark after the patent period ended.
 
I am not a lawyer, but it would seem that the trademark claim should be relatively weak, given that Spyderco also puts their logo on all of their knives. A knife that has a round hole, without a Spyderco logo, is unlikely to be mistaken for a Spyderco, upon close inspection).

Since the patent expired on using round holes to open folding knives, it‘s hard for me to imagine that Spyderco could legally stop other makers from using round holes as an opening mechanism, as long they cannot be easily confused with an existing Spyderco knife (i.e., a knock-off). It would seem that trademarking the name Spyderco and the spider logo would also offer sufficient protection against knock-offs.
 
Last edited:
Patents and trademarks are different. Don't know if the Spyderco hole remains a registered trademark though (now that the patent has expired).
 
The patent has expired. The trademark is till in force

Spyderco appears to be using their shiny footprints ethos if another maker infringes on the trademark. Obviously some folks will ignore polite requests in the pursuit of profits.

It's been said in the past though that for small makers they just have to ask for permission to make folders with that feature.
 
Karl H said:
I am not a lawyer, but it would seem that the trademark claim should be relatively weak, given that Spyderco also puts their logo on all of their knives. A knife that has a round hole, without a Spyderco logo, is unlikely to be mistaken for a Spyderco, upon close inspection).

Since the patent expired on using round holes to open folding knives, it‘s hard for me to imagine that Spyderco could legally stop other makers from using round holes as an opening mechanism, as long they cannot be easily confused with an existing Spyderco knife (i.e., a knock-off). It would seem that trademarking the name Spyderco and the spider logo would also offer sufficient protection against knock-offs.
Click to expand...

The wordmark, logo and hole are all covered by different trademarks. The wordmark and logo are pretty straightforward on what they protect. The hole is a little different; they're claiming a trademark on the use of a "round hole" rather than any other shape of hole. Basically, they argued that because they used a round hole for the entire patent period and it's associated with Spyderco, they should be the only ones allowed to use a "round hole." As a lawyer (though I only deal with IP peripherally), I don't find it a particularly convincing argument.

ferider said:
Patents and trademarks are different. Don't know if the Spyderco hole remains a registered trademark though (now that the patent has expired).
Click to expand...

Danke42 said:
The patent has expired. The trademark is till in force

Spyderco appears to be using their shiny footprints ethos if another maker infringes on the trademark. Obviously some folks will ignore polite requests in the pursuit of profits.

It's been said in the past though that for small makers they just have to ask for permission to make folders with that feature.
Click to expand...

To maintain a trademark, you generally have to police unauthorized use, which means granting licenses to whoever you want to use it and enforcing the trademark against people you don't want to use it. Since I don't find their trademark claim on the round hole to be on particularly strong footing, I think they license it to keep anyone from challenging the validity of the mark. If someone with deep enough pockets sued to invalidate the trademark, I think they'd be able to get it done. For Spyderco, it makes business sense to try to prevent that as much as possible, so if granting some licenses is required, they'd rather do that than risk litigation where they'd lose the round hole trademark entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top