VIEWPOINT PATENTLY PROTECTED
Carl Jones, Product Category Manager – Cylinders & Padlocks at ASSA ABLOY Door Hardware Group, explains why some claims around key copy protection can be misleading.
ONE OF THE most important functions of any cylinder locking system is key copy protection. Without this, keys can easily fall into the wrong hands, compromising the security of a building or facility. Yet unfortunately, many cylinder systems still allow for extra keys to be legally obtained without the owners’ knowledge.
To reassure their customers that this won’t happen, some manufacturers advertise claims to the effect of “lifelong trademark protection”. This implies their products are protected from illegal copying. Unfortunately, this is misleading – and could pose a serious risk not only to the facility that buys the claim, but to the merchant who sold the system. Here’s a look at the myth of so-called “trademark protection”, and how to ensure the locking systems you sell are genuinely protected against key copying.
The myth of trademark protection
“Unlimited trademark
protection”, “lifelong trademark protection”, “lifetime trademark protection which protects against illegal duplication of keys”, “key profile with trademark protection for lifelong, legal
key protection”. These are all real examples of claims that have been made by suppliers of cylinder locks to promote their products.
All the above claims imply that the keys benefit from protection from unauthorised copying. However, applying a trademark design to the cross-section of a key has no legal protection under trademark law. As a result, none of these claims actually mean that the key is protected whatsoever.
The fact is that the only legitimate protection against key copying is patent protection. This is because patents are wholly concerned with the function aspect of a product or process. The functionality of a key is covered within patent law, and therefore a key with patent protection is genuinely protected from unauthorised copying. Whenever the trademark on the cross-section of a key is used in marketing to suggest that it prevents copying, this is misuse of a trademark. The consequences of misusing trademarks are serious, with the potential to severely damage any company making them. For example, in 2016, a court in Germany found an industry
manufacturer guilty of making misleading claims in their advertising that their trademarks provided key copy
protection. The
company was ordered to remove all claims relating to trademarked key profiles from their advertising, and the judge explained that, in cases of this nature, penalties can include a fine of up to E250,000 and up to two years’ imprisonment. Nor are the consequences of trademark misuse limited to manufacturers – they can also affect the merchant. By selling, knowingly or otherwise, locking systems that misuse trademarks, you are risking the potential of litigation, orders to remove misleading claims, and large fines. This is not to mention the reputational damage in the eyes of customers, who will struggle to trust any marketing claims that are made in the future.
Patent protection The only way to validate whether a cylinder system is safe from key copying is if it is subject to a current patent.
When choosing one to stock or sell, therefore, it is crucial to understand what the supplier’s key copy protection claims are, as well as their process for managing this.
Ensuring that the basis of their protection is a valid patent, and that this has not expired (patents can last up to 20 years from filing). It is also important to verify that the patent is valid in the country where the product will be used. Only when you have established these points will you be in a position to choose a system that provides the security your customers need. Here at UNION, we have recently launched our new premium and comprehensive master key cylinder range, keyMASTER, which delivers a long-lasting patent life for maximum protection against key copying until 2036. Above all, you should remember that the only true protection against key copying is patent protection. As such, claims around so-called ‘trademark’ protection are often misleading and should be disregarded. Only when this point is widely understood will we be able to truly tackle the issue of key copying – and in the process make our buildings as secure as they need to be. BMJ
18
www.buildersmerchantsjournal.net November 2022
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
