Spyderco Forums

tvenuto wrote:This is interesting because Spyderco went from patenting the hole feature, to trademarking it, which is definitely non-standard. I'm no lawyer, but my google-fu is black belt, and there are sources that claim the current interpretation of the spyderco hole wouldn't be protected as a trademark due to its functionality. However, that would be decided by the powers that grant the trademark, and spyderco obviously got it granted, so the point is somewhat moot.

The patent did not specify a round hole, or even a hole, used as an opener. It covered a "depression" in the blade of a folding knife that allowed the knife to be opened with one hand. The Spyderhole opener is a specific instance of that, but so are the trapezoidal depressions that allow one hand opening of a C27 Jess Horn with either hand.
To use functionality as an argument against trademarking the Spyderhole, one would have to show that a round hole has a measurable advantage as an opening device over holes of other shapes. That would be difficult to prove, especially since several other makers have claimed in their advertising that the hole shapes they use are the best.

The pocket clip Parker uses on their pens and mechanical pencils is functional, but its arrow shape can be trademarked because any number of other clip shapes work just as well.

tvenuto wrote:This is interesting because Spyderco went from patenting the hole feature, to trademarking it, which is definitely non-standard. I'm no lawyer, but my google-fu is black belt, and there are sources that claim the current interpretation of the spyderco hole wouldn't be protected as a trademark due to its functionality. However, that would be decided by the powers that grant the trademark, and spyderco obviously got it granted, so the point is somewhat moot.

Trademark, patent, or some type of Kung Fu sash with a variety of holes in it. It doesn't really matter except having the ability to pursue a company legally for them to cease use and/or damages. It seems to me that Spyderco is too busy making great knives and trying new things than defending petty claims and IP. The hole is just reinforcing the brand at this point and arguably that's a good place to be in as a company. Well, unless your a patent squatting/sharking company...something our country seems to have invented.

People can skirt the issue all they want, oblong the hole or blatantly copy it. However, for such a very small industry where reputations are tough to build and easy to destroy some of these folks are pissing in a very small pool. I'll never buy any design that has a hole the blade for a opening-method unless I know it has Spyderco's blessing. Perhaps that's a petty thing keeping me from some great knives but IMHO there are some amazing knives with studs out there. Kingdom Armory, Brad Southard, and a number of those folks proudly mention the hole and it's licensed use.

"Integrity is doing the right thing when nobody is watching." - Sal G


PS: I'm not making a statement about Brous as I haven't researched them as a brand. Just not very interested in the products aesthetically.

Just an FYI for those not aware that Brous Blade has a tinted reputation for copying design from other makers. And is permanently banned from one of the leading and certainly, exclusive hardcore forum.

That said and reputation did not deter me from buying the Brous Silent Soldier Framelock Flipper 1 of 200 Ti $429 model. To find out for myself since so many have hyped over its many excellent attributes.

Well, my last two week's experiences....first one was a sham....called dealer and he had one more....told him I will pay for the second one in full to secure it but the first one will have to be refunded...he said ok....got the second one...not wanting to bash too much and why it is also another disappointment. Getting refund on both, no more Brous SSF for sure and not much confidence with its other offerings as well.

I have mail ordered many different brand knives over the years, this is the first time returning...not once but twice on the same $429 limited production and numbered model...so...for me...its not a coincidence.

Nothing like products from Spyderco. I never had one disappointed me.

On the other hand, again, based on hypes, just ordered a Rockstead Higo in ZDP...projected 2-4 months wait from Japan....fact or another fiction? Will be interesting!

Aloha!

The Deacon wrote:To use functionality as an argument against trademarking the Spyderhole, one would have to show that a round hole has a measurable advantage as an opening device over holes of other shapes. That would be difficult to prove, especially since several other makers have claimed in their advertising that the hole shapes they use are the best.

The pocket clip Parker uses on their pens and mechanical pencils is functional, but its arrow shape can be trademarked because any number of other clip shapes work just as well.

I don't want to get into a whole thing about it, but the law is a fuzzy place, and there is no univserally accepted definition for "functional." Apparently peptobismol was prevented from trademarking their pink color because it was shown to have a "psychosomatic effect" and made people more likely to take it. I'm sure their lawyers thought that one was a slam dunk. If the color pink can be functional, it wouldn't seem like the boundaries on it are farther out than many of us would think.

I would agree with most people here, though. It's very well known that spyderco was the first to implement the hole, and that it is recognizable as their feature. Law technicalities and lawyer arguments don't change that fact, and I think the educated consumers feel as Blerv does. Even if other companies can get away with using it, I won't be buying from those companies.

Blerv, I agree and do not buy knives with holes that are not Spydies. The exception being my Leatherman and it's oval hole. Just couldn't live without my first generation Wave.

Give credit where credit is due, something Spyderco always does.

Blerv, I agree and do not buy unlicensed knives with holes that are not Spydies. The exception being my Leatherman and it's oval hole. Just couldn't live without my first generation Wave.

Give credit where credit is due, something Spyderco always does.

The Sage line is about just that.

Spyderco was in existence long before I bought my first - back in 1994.

Patent Right on the Spyderco "Hole" has long been expired.

If anyone use the Spyderco hole design, I think it is the highest compliment to the originator - much the same as for the RIL framlock design, which so commonly used by countless makers.

Although I have decided not to own any Brous blade. In Brous defense, in the case with the Brous SSF in particular, hole design is for index finger to enhance hand grip and control. It is certainly an innovative idea to enhance a secure and control grip. Unlike the Spyderco hole, Brous hole is near impossible use to deploy blade - if you have try it, then, you know what I mean. Its flipper action is effective, as well as novel. If not for the quality issues, Brous SSF certainly would have been among my collection.

Aloha!

http://www2.knifecenter.com/item/RSRYOH ... um-handles" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would the hole in the Rockstead's blade falls within the many complaints in this thread, concern having a hole on a blade?

Another clearer picture to illustrate common hole within Rockstead's many folder and fixed blade design:

http://www.rocksteadshop.jp/sites/defau ... dp-191.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.rocksteadshop.jp/sites/defau ... dp-142.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www2.knifecenter.com/item/RSUNZD ... ped-handle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tvenuto wrote:my google-fu is black belt,

I'm sorry, I seriously couldn't resist. I am a child.

Constructively now, I actually learned a little bit from a patent lawyer a couple months ago, and it's not uncommon to do this since trademarks can be renewed indefinitely. It was discussed specifically in the presentation. That's all I remember or took notes on, but it's enough to justify this post to get that pic in here.

Ok, now cue the late 90's electronica...

victorf wrote:http://www2.knifecenter.com/item/RSRYOH ... um-handles

Would the hole in the Rockstead's blade falls within the many complaints in this thread, concern having a hole on a blade?

I can't speak for everyone but, IMHO, it does not infringe on Spyderco's trademark because it's not positioned to be used as an opening device.

Trademarks are very often contextual, you can't trademark an existing word, but if someone starts building cars and calling them Fords, they will likely get sued. To me, Spyderco's trademark only covers round holes on the blades of folding knives that are usable as devices to allow one hand opening. That hole has been a feature of every Spyderco branded folder except one, from the first Worker to the newest of the prototypes showcased in Wouter's Amsterdam report.

For the record, the only obviously non-round hole usable as an opener that would bother me would be one that infringe Spyderco's other trademark, the "comma" shaped Byrd hole.

Benchmade has straight up spyderco ripoffs. Do they pay license fees?

The Deacon wrote: To use functionality as an argument against trademarking the Spyderhole, one would have to show that a round hole has a measurable advantage as an opening device over holes of other shapes. That would be difficult to prove, especially since several other makers have claimed in their advertising that the hole shapes they use are the best.

This is a good point, and I assume you are referring to the second factor outlined by Judge Rich, in In re Morton-Norwich Products.

Unfortunately spydercos own advertising/promotion provides the necessary evidence of “functionality” (https://www.spyderco.com/edge-u-cation/index.php?item=7) where (at lines 3-6) they tout the functional advantage of the round hole and its positioning (i.e. it provides “maximum control”).

This advertising, along with the patent that covers the trademarked embodiment, would be more than enough to have the trademark found invalid.

Rasputin wrote:

The Deacon wrote: To use functionality as an argument against trademarking the Spyderhole, one would have to show that a round hole has a measurable advantage as an opening device over holes of other shapes. That would be difficult to prove, especially since several other makers have claimed in their advertising that the hole shapes they use are the best.

This is a good point, and I assume you are referring to the second factor outlined by Judge Rich, in In re Morton-Norwich Products.

Unfortunately spydercos own advertising/promotion provides the necessary evidence of “functionality” (https://www.spyderco.com/edge-u-cation/index.php?item=7) where (at lines 3-6) they tout the functional advantage of the round hole and its positioning (i.e. it provides “maximum control”).

This advertising, along with the patent that covers the trademarked embodiment, would be more than enough to have the trademark found invalid.

And, as I stated, other makers have claimed the shapes they use are superior to a round hole. To invalidate its use as a trademark, someone would have to prove, in a court of law, that it offers a real and measurable advantage over, say a ten sided hole like this.
I'm no lawyer, but I don't really think that could be proven.

EDITED TO ADD: Beyond that, I think we may just have to agree to disagree. Any civil case is a craps shoot, often more a case of whose pockets are deeper or whose lawyer is most skillful than who's in the right. If that weren't enough, the sad fact is that few judges, and even fewer potential jurors, have even rudimentary knowledge, much less an understanding, of intellectual property law.