I heard about this from Tim Herman and Darrel Ralph the other night in IRC chat. So I did a little background research at the USPTO web site. Here is what I found out, and what I think about this issue.
First, Mr. Walker DOES NOT own a patent (enforceable Or expired) on the liner lock mechanism. He has NO RIGHTS under US law to sue to collect royalties or licensing fees from makers or manufacturers using this mechanism.
Michael Walker does Indeed own the trademark for the word
Linerlock (registration number 1585333 03/06/90). There is no expiration date on a trademark as long as the owner continues to use the mark. It is registered for a ten year term. Enforcement of the owners legal rights is the responsibility of the owner (he must pay all costs associated with enforcement of the trademark rights).
It sounds to me like Mr. Walker is trying to use the Guild's influence to help enforce his right to use the mark 'linerlock'. If he can accomplish this action, then he would be able to demand that users of this mark pay him royalties or face sanctions (what exactly?) from the Guild.
It is important to distinguish a Patent from a trademark. The linerlock mechanism IS NOT patented. Walker (and Lake) own three different patents covering locking mechanisms and safeties for locks. These do not cover the mechanism commonly called a 'linerlock'.
Makers are free to use the linerlock mechanism without paying Mr. Walker any royalties or licensing fees. But it is up to Mr. Walker to pursue legal remedies to stop makers from using the word 'linerlock' to describe their knives. I'm guessing that this is in such common use now that Mr. Walker would have a very hard time convincing a court to sanction users of this word. Especially if the word 'linerlock' is not used on the knife or it's packaging or advertising.
This strikes me as a clever way (using the Knifemakers Guild) to try force the knifemaking community to pay him money for any knife described as a 'linerlock'. Curiously, the name Walker lock is NOT trademarked. Any maker should be able to use that name for a knife with a 'linerlock' without paying Mr. Walker anything.
Mr. Walker (Mr. Lake?) is trying to extort money from honest folks using a the common name for a mechanism which he DID NOT invent. This does not mean that he will not meet with some sucess, however.
I am not at all certain what this Guild action means. Is the Knifemakers Guild going to enforce sanctions against makers and manufacturers who fail to pay Mr. Walker royalties. Will they expel makers from the Guild for paying to pay these royalities? Will the Guild pay for legal representation for Mr. Walker to enforce is (questionable) trademark rights?
The following is excerpted from the USPTO website:
Trademark rights arise from either (1) actual use of the mark, or (2) the filing of a proper application to register a mark in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) stating that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce regulated by the U.S. Congress. (See below, under "Types of Applications," for a discussion of what is meant by the terms commerce and use in commerce.) Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a mark, nor is it required to begin use of a mark. However, federal registration can secure benefits beyond the rights acquired by merely using a mark. For example, the owner of a federal registration is presumed to be the owner of the mark for the goods and services specified in the registration, and to be entitled to use the mark nationwide.
There are two related but distinct types of rights in a mark: the right to register and the right to use. Generally, the first party who either uses a mark in commerce or files an application in the PTO has the ultimate right to register that mark. The PTO's authority is limited to determining the right to register.The right to use a mark can be more complicated to determine. This is particularly true when two parties have begun use of the same or similar marks without knowledge of one another and neither has a federal registration. Only a court can render a decision about the right to use, such as issuing an injunction or awarding damages for infringement. It should be noted that a federal registration can provide significant advantages to a party involved in a court proceeding. The PTO cannot provide advice concerning rights in a mark. Only a private attorney can provide such advice.
Unlike copyrights or patents, trademark rights can last indefinitely if the owner continues to use the mark to identify its goods or services. The term of a federal trademark registration is 10 years, with 10-year renewal terms. However, between the fifth and sixth year after the date of initial registration, the registrant must file an affidavit setting forth certain information to keep the registration alive. If no affidavit is filed, the registration is canceled.
An applicant may apply for federal registration in three principal ways. (1) An applicant who has already commenced using a mark in commerce may file based on that use (a "use" application). (2) An applicant who has not yet used the mark may apply based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce (an "intent-to-use" application). For the purpose of obtaining federal registration, commerce means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by the U.S. Congress, for example, interstate commerce or commerce between the U.S. and another country. The use in commerce must be a bona fide use in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. Use of a mark in promotion or advertising before the product or service is actually provided under the mark on a normal commercial scale does not qualify as use in commerce. Use of a mark in purely local commerce within a state does not qualify as "use in commerce." If an applicant files based on a bona fide intention to use in commerce, the applicant will have to use the mark in commerce and submit an allegation of use to the PTO before the PTO will register the mark.
I think it is interesting that the name Interlock was also registered, but is abandoned. Anyone can use this name. Similarly, I'm guessing that the use of the mark 'liner-lock' with a hyphen would not be protected.
Let Walker pursue his own lawsuits against users of the 'linerlock' name. I hope that the Guild does not help him in his (or Lake's) scheme. As I put in bold text above, the trademark law is not in place to merely reserve the right to the mark. It is supposed to actually be used in the course of doing business. I think Mr. Walker may have a tough time in a court of law. I dunno about the Guild. Sounds like the resolution has passed. But what does it Mean?
basic trademark information
Paracelsus
