Archived Posts » 59,789,155
BUSHMASTER WINS TRADEMARK CASE BROUGHT BY COLT DEFENSE LLC.
12/9/2005 9:35:00 PM
Here's the latest from Bushmaster's website...
Windham, ME (December 8th, 2005) - Richard Dyke, Chairman and principal stockholder of Bushmaster Firearms, is pleased with a December 6 decision of the United States District Court in Maine granting summary judgment for Bushmaster in a trademark case brought by Colt Defense, LLC. In the case, Colt accused Bushmaster of infringing the “M4” trademark and the trade dress of the M4, both of which Colt claimed it owned to the exclusion of others in the industry. In addition to denying Colt’s infringement claims, the Court granted judgment for Bushmaster on its claim for cancellation of Colt’s federal trademark registration for the “M4”.
Dyke said he is pleased, not only for Bushmaster, but for the entire firearms industry. “Colt has for years made all sorts of claims as to rights it asserted belonged only to it,” he said. “And this case clearly shows Colt has been overstating its rights. In this case, the Court determined that the right to use the M4 term and to sell firearms that look like the M4 type, are rights that belong to the industry, not just Colt.”
The Court’s order affirmed a prior recommended decision of a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the case. Among other things, the Magistrate’s decision:
Held that the M4 is a generic term which merely describes a type of firearm, and is not an identifier of Colt as a sole source for such firearms. In doing so, the decision noted that more than a dozen firearm manufacturers other than Colt have used the term M4 for years to refer to military-style carbines with collapsible buttstocks and shortened barrels. Since the M4 term is generic, the court granted judgment for Bushmaster that Colt’s federal trademark registration for the M4 should be cancelled.
Dismissed Colt’s claim for infringement of M4 trade dress both because the alleged trade dress is primarily non-functional and because Colt could not establish that the buying public associated the look of the M4 only with Colt.
Dismissed Colt’s claims for infringement of the terms M16, CAR, MATCH TARGET, AR-15 and COMMANDO because it concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion among purchasers as to the source of Bushmaster’s products.
The Court also held Colt could recover no damages on its only remaining claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
Windham, ME (December 8th, 2005) - Richard Dyke, Chairman and principal stockholder of Bushmaster Firearms, is pleased with a December 6 decision of the United States District Court in Maine granting summary judgment for Bushmaster in a trademark case brought by Colt Defense, LLC. In the case, Colt accused Bushmaster of infringing the “M4” trademark and the trade dress of the M4, both of which Colt claimed it owned to the exclusion of others in the industry. In addition to denying Colt’s infringement claims, the Court granted judgment for Bushmaster on its claim for cancellation of Colt’s federal trademark registration for the “M4”.
Dyke said he is pleased, not only for Bushmaster, but for the entire firearms industry. “Colt has for years made all sorts of claims as to rights it asserted belonged only to it,” he said. “And this case clearly shows Colt has been overstating its rights. In this case, the Court determined that the right to use the M4 term and to sell firearms that look like the M4 type, are rights that belong to the industry, not just Colt.”
The Court’s order affirmed a prior recommended decision of a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the case. Among other things, the Magistrate’s decision:
Held that the M4 is a generic term which merely describes a type of firearm, and is not an identifier of Colt as a sole source for such firearms. In doing so, the decision noted that more than a dozen firearm manufacturers other than Colt have used the term M4 for years to refer to military-style carbines with collapsible buttstocks and shortened barrels. Since the M4 term is generic, the court granted judgment for Bushmaster that Colt’s federal trademark registration for the M4 should be cancelled.
Dismissed Colt’s claim for infringement of M4 trade dress both because the alleged trade dress is primarily non-functional and because Colt could not establish that the buying public associated the look of the M4 only with Colt.
Dismissed Colt’s claims for infringement of the terms M16, CAR, MATCH TARGET, AR-15 and COMMANDO because it concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion among purchasers as to the source of Bushmaster’s products.
The Court also held Colt could recover no damages on its only remaining claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
12/9/2005 10:19:56 PM
Good for Bushmaster!
12/10/2005 1:28:35 AM
+1 for Bushmaster
12/10/2005 1:32:14 AM
Sorry....can't resist...
8.) Posting repeat topics with similar or slightly varying titles. While it may seem to be funny, the "spamming" of the community in this manner results in problems for users and management. (Multiple topics on important issues or discussions are acceptable, this only applies to topics which waste resources for no other reason except personal enjoyment or humor.)
8.) Posting repeat topics with similar or slightly varying titles. While it may seem to be funny, the "spamming" of the community in this manner results in problems for users and management. (Multiple topics on important issues or discussions are acceptable, this only applies to topics which waste resources for no other reason except personal enjoyment or humor.)
12/10/2005 7:43:31 AM
The fact that Colt spent its resources on sucha dead-end matter speaks to its long and continuing
decine in market share, quality, and customer service. Colt, my virtue of its name recognition and early military contracts, squandered a golden opportunity to dominate these markets.
In my experience, run away from the products of any company that negatively attacks its competition. It's a sure sign that it cannot compete on the merits of its products and service.
The short version: Colt's actions and total defeat speak volumes.
decine in market share, quality, and customer service. Colt, my virtue of its name recognition and early military contracts, squandered a golden opportunity to dominate these markets.
In my experience, run away from the products of any company that negatively attacks its competition. It's a sure sign that it cannot compete on the merits of its products and service.
The short version: Colt's actions and total defeat speak volumes.
12/10/2005 9:59:03 AM
YAY for Bushmaster's win in court!
After the way Colt and Ruger have treated the law abiding civilian market, I do my best to avoid products from either manufacturer. Colt has neutered their AR-15 to where it is a royal PITA to drop a two stage trigger in it. Ruger (and this may have changed) did not allow civilian sales of their factory high capacity pistol magazines with the purchase of a new handgun AFTER the AWB sunsetted in '04. The only exceptions I would make would be for a 1911 or a Red/Blackhawk, assuming the deal is great. As for a new purchase from Colt or Ruger, forget it
.
After the way Colt and Ruger have treated the law abiding civilian market, I do my best to avoid products from either manufacturer. Colt has neutered their AR-15 to where it is a royal PITA to drop a two stage trigger in it. Ruger (and this may have changed) did not allow civilian sales of their factory high capacity pistol magazines with the purchase of a new handgun AFTER the AWB sunsetted in '04. The only exceptions I would make would be for a 1911 or a Red/Blackhawk, assuming the deal is great. As for a new purchase from Colt or Ruger, forget it
.12/10/2005 10:42:53 AM
This is good news for Bushmaster, HK, and any other company wanting to provide high quality AR's to both the civilian and military end-user.
Kudos.
Kudos.
12/10/2005 10:56:47 AM
Does this remove any roadblocks or Bushy if they want .mil contract? Like Bushy, or not,, this is good for the market.
12/10/2005 1:14:01 PM
Great news for Bushmaster, sorry Colt but you brought this upon yourself.
I'm not 100% clear on the ruling though.
Does this mean that a Bushmaster lower marked 'M16', 'M4' etc. would be legally possible -without Colt crying like a baby- or is it just OK for advertising use, or use as a generic moniker describing a specific type of black rifle; Like the way we use the term AR15?
I'm not 100% clear on the ruling though.
Does this mean that a Bushmaster lower marked 'M16', 'M4' etc. would be legally possible -without Colt crying like a baby- or is it just OK for advertising use, or use as a generic moniker describing a specific type of black rifle; Like the way we use the term AR15?
12/10/2005 2:17:16 PM
LOL!!
Good for Bushmaster and the industry. Colt's arrogance just got bitch slapped. I love it!!!!!
Good for Bushmaster and the industry. Colt's arrogance just got bitch slapped. I love it!!!!!
12/10/2005 2:51:32 PM
Dupe 
ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260152
Yay for Bushmaster by the way. I thought it was truly arrogant for Colt to attempt to trademark a military designation, and am glad that the court ruled the way it did in this case.
ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260152
Yay for Bushmaster by the way. I thought it was truly arrogant for Colt to attempt to trademark a military designation, and am glad that the court ruled the way it did in this case.
12/10/2005 9:31:53 PM
Knocked 'em down a peg!
I'm still a diehard Colt fan though!
I'm still a diehard Colt fan though!
12/10/2005 11:29:07 PM
Originally Posted By MichaelVain: This is good news for Bushmaster, HK, and any other company wanting to provide high quality AR's to both the civilian and military end-user. Kudos. |
+1 - particularly for HK, which seemed to really be under the gun by Colt's legal machine.
12/11/2005 12:24:57 AM
12/11/2005 3:58:26 AM
GO BUSHMASTER
12/11/2005 6:40:20 AM
+1 for Bushmaster. Colt needs to wake up and smell the CLP.
12/11/2005 3:03:51 PM
The CLP? More like the CLAP, which has rotted it's brain. That does not add up since [ colt - bollocks = gelding ] anyway. As for the aforementioned HK, they can go hang IMO. The AWB has sunset and the bill against junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers is now law. Any gun manufacturer that still acts PC to civilians deserves to wither and die on the vine. If Colt wants to sue HK, let them. IMO it is like watching a drug dealer and a pimp trying to kill each other... WHO CARES!!! Ah, the joy of it. I will just kick back and watch the fun.
Way to go Bushmaster!
Shoot_Blue_Helmets
Way to go Bushmaster!
Shoot_Blue_Helmets
12/11/2005 6:12:39 PM
Outstanding!!
Way to go Bushy!!
David
Way to go Bushy!!
David
12/11/2005 6:50:39 PM
Hey hey hey what about my 10+ page thread
http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260152
http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260152
12/11/2005 11:37:50 PM
Thats great for bushmaster!!
12/12/2005 8:53:43 PM
Congrats bushmaster! 
12/13/2005 12:24:00 PM
Ding dong the witch is dead... Colt scmolt ... hooray Bushy!
12/13/2005 2:58:13 PM
Go BUSHMASTER!!!
12/13/2005 3:59:09 PM
Colt's just trying to protect any Trademark that they can. Anyone in business would probably try to do this. I know I would, if I was trying to save a company in trouble. Must be a lot of non-Colt owners out there. I'm Sorry............. Quality is not an issue with Colt. Unlike some other M4 style rifles. Colt is only guilty of running their business poorly........Bushmaster fan's - be nice.
12/17/2005 4:35:41 PM
.
12/19/2005 6:48:34 PM
Outstanding news! I hate it when the "big companies" with a few govt. contracts tries to bully the rest of the industry. Besides, I think Bushmaster puts out a better product than Colt anyway.
12/19/2005 7:17:28 PM
Originally Posted By Psychojeeper: Besides, I think Bushmaster puts out a better product than Colt anyway. |
Thats why I gotta buy a new receiver extension in order to put a Crane stock on, right?
12/21/2005 1:47:51 AM
So do I own a "REAL" M4 now?
12/21/2005 1:50:42 AM
Originally Posted By YELLOWV: So do I own a "REAL" M4 now? |
Does it say "Property of US Government" and "Safe-Semi-Burst" on the side and come with a carbon copy of an enlistment contract? Then no.
12/21/2005 1:31:03 PM
Does this mean that we'll see rifles marked AR15 instead of M15 or LAR15 or XM15? I think it would be nice to see it happen. Well I guess I should go get me a Bushmaster now. I am glad that they stood up to Colt and didn't back down. Thanks Arvin
12/21/2005 6:40:32 PM
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Thats why I gotta buy a new receiver extension in order to put a Crane stock on, right? |
I have no problems adding new "mil-spec" parts to my Bushmaster A-3.
It's as good a rifle as a Colt, without paying for the "Pony"logo.
12/21/2005 8:15:58 PM
How did you manage to get a SOPMOD stock onto a BFI receiver extension? Did you manage to convince them that the M16 carriers WERE legal for ARs? Colt knows that. Did you buy yours with MPI parts, parking under an "F" FSB?
1/4/2006 10:33:26 PM
Maybe Colt will stop trying to sue their way to the top, and actually start catering to customers to stay in business.
1/14/2006 10:55:14 AM
I like everything about that article, definitely positive to the manufactures of true spec ar 15 m4 type rifles. As far as i know a true m4 has a 14 1/2 in barrel and m4 feed ramps not a 16 in barrel, and not dremeled or standard ramps.Will companies make false disclaimers in that respect? Or am i wrong on my true m4 specs.
1/15/2006 1:54:42 AM
Originally Posted By ghostshell07: I like everything about that article, definitely positive to the manufactures of true spec ar 15 m4 type rifles. As far as i know a true m4 has a 14 1/2 in barrel and m4 feed ramps not a 16 in barrel, and not dremeled or standard ramps.Will companies make false disclaimers in that respect? Or am i wrong on my true m4 specs. |
I beileve you are corect to your specs.
Congratulations bushie... I love my AR more and more everyday.
2/5/2006 10:04:43 PM
cool
2/5/2006 10:09:06 PM
Originally Posted By redhead522: Maybe Colt will stop trying to sue their way to the top, and actually start catering to customers to stay in business. |
They do cater to their customers. Mostly they sell weapons to the government. You don't give them enough money to rate their effort. Free market is a bitch, eh?
2/12/2006 2:19:54 PM
I just don't get it. In my small part of the world, Colt wants more for their units than nearly any other mfg. Other mfg.s are putting out really nice complete units, parts & pieces that cost less $$, and as near as i can tell, the top end of just about whoevers does as well as the top end of my Colt unit. Some years ago I paid Colt for a history document and it took 3 years & a whole lot of UNnecessary hassle to finally get it. It was nothing if not absurd, cuz they told me they had received the payment years before. I think I finally got the paper after I contacted someone there and convinced them that I had been telliing anyone & everyone who asked about the unit that Colt gave the absolute worst service and care of any mfg I had experience with. Finally they replied and refunded the payment + a bit more. By then I didn't care and had probably shared that experience with a couple hundred other folks who like the ar style, plus alloYOUSE.
'course, I had an even WORSE experience with my 'The Black Lemon' from para'ordnance. That one took like 7 years to clear up. So much for 'wanting'.
Service is all part of the quality issue in my book, & I seem to get plenty of good service from the other product providers.
HG
'course, I had an even WORSE experience with my 'The Black Lemon' from para'ordnance. That one took like 7 years to clear up. So much for 'wanting'.
Service is all part of the quality issue in my book, & I seem to get plenty of good service from the other product providers.
HG
