Would you exploit a trademark loophole?

[Melvin-Purvis]

And if so, to what end?

(I posed this same question on another knife related forum as well)

Mel

 

[hardheart]

If I were selling cheap knockoffs, sure. But they don't deal with these ethical questions anyway.

 

[El Lobo]

THE HOLE

I think that may have been the direction, but misunderstood, in the "OTHER" forum.

This is really one of the most interesting "patent/trademark" issues I've ever heard/read about.........Will be following it with much interest.

Bill

 

[Walking Man]

Unfortunetly, it's a Dog-Eat-Dog world in business, and this whole "Corporate Citizenship" crap isn't worth a hill of beans, because most corporations (I believe) tend to be running by Cold-Hearted dictators or by Power Hungry, eager-to-please-at-any-cost VPs. So if there was a real loophole in the law, I'd probably look at it as part of the system, good-or-bad. After all, how many corps. squeeze the blood of the rocks that are tax loopholes, and other legislation, that is passed just for the financial gain of certain industries? NOT to mention the fact that a small business can barely get off the ground because his competition is selling the products at the cost he is buying it at? Pardon the soapbox, but I'm really jaded at the system that is supposed to encourage a free market and a capitalistic society.

 

[Keith Montgomery]

You are asking a very difficult question. If I had spent a whole lot of time developing something and found that a very small part of the design was covered by a trademark that had a loophole, then there is a good chance that I would exploit that loophole, but only after first going to the holder of the trademark and seeing if there was something that could be worked out. To what end you ask? So that I could bring something that I had put my heart and soul into developing to fruition. I would however never design something because I had found a loophole in a trademark.

 

[marcangel]

Ahhh, the great HOLE debate! First, some holes are MUCH nicer than others, ! I've seen some recent Benchmade knives with multiple holes, Tom Mayo uses an oval, MBC Bear a diamond, A.T. Barr goes WHOLE hog with a hole in the One-eyed-Jack. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. Sure it's Spyderco's "Trademark", but that is sort of like a patent on the wheel, it's not that "revolutionary" of an idea and is really quite commonly used. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, when it's infringed on "just a little", because it is done all the time in just about every industry.

What I DO have a problem with, is what Kershaw did to Timberline a few years ago, when they threatened to sue the be-jeezus out of them for infringement on the Speed Safe mechanism that they produce UNDER LICENSE! Now, everybody and their mother has some sort of assisted opening mechanism, that is actually a whole lot closer to the speed safe design than the Timberline mechanism ever was! The fact is Timberline is a very tiny compand relative to Kershaw and they would have bankrupted them in the process, so they dropped their assisted opener which was a great knife. You don't see Kershaw going after Buck, SOG, or any of the other big companies now do you?

 

[hardheart]

What I DO have a problem with, is what Kershaw did to Timberline a few years ago, when they threatened to sue the be-jeezus out of them for infringement on the Speed Safe mechanism that they produce UNDER LICENSE! Now, everybody and their mother has some sort of assisted opening mechanism, that is actually a whole lot closer to the speed safe design than the Timberline mechanism ever was! The fact is Timberline is a very tiny compand relative to Kershaw and they would have bankrupted them in the process, so they dropped their assisted opener which was a great knife. You don't see Kershaw going after Buck, SOG, or any of the other big companies now do you?

you don't see me buying any speedsafes either

 

[Melvin-Purvis]

Well, maybe some 'holes...

The thing of it is, a buddy of mine that collects militaria (sp?) has discovered that an older recognized product trademark was not registered properly, and has interest in registering it in his name...

His question to me was if I thought this was an 'ok' thing to do? I told him I'd get back to him on this when he returns from Britain next week...

I'm not sure that his doing so would hurt anyone, or even make him a buck...but I thought I'd ask the question here before I responded to his question...

You guys are the best, and besides, you're pretty well rounded too...

Mel

p.s. Exploit was his word, and Webster's seems to define the noun 'exploit' as a positive, while the verb context is negative...I believe he meant the noun form of the word...

 

[hardheart]

if it's old, nobody is using it, and it isn't proper, then sure.

 

[Keith Montgomery]

If it was not properly registered then it has not really been trademarked and he should not be concerned about it at all, in my opinion.