User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 7:13:28 AM EDT
[#1]
O, not relevant to this case really; but remember Bushmaster's settlement with the Brady -types in the Malvo-related suit? I just discovered that Bushmaster's insurance company successfully sued Bushmaster to avoid payment on that suit saying that such claims were not covered by the policy.
I found that case while searching for the Colt suit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 9:25:38 AM EDT
[#2]
Proves my belief that most insurance companies have the worst ethics and practices of almost any industry. Look what happened after Hurricane Andrew, they cut and run and left many FL residents high and dry. BM definitely got the raw end of the deal on that one. The bastards take your money year after year, but don't want any of the risk, which is why you pay them in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 9:28:37 AM EDT
[#3]
Well don't run, just tell us how you plan to prove this in a scientific way without resorting to conjecture and unsupported opinion. Otherwise your statement really does not mean much except that it tells us you don't care for Colt products. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 9:35:54 AM EDT
[#4]
I'd like to get a chance to evaluate one of these, they are quite rare:  Norinco is capable of making a decent firearm, though it doesn't always happen. I have read good things about their 1911 clones, when they were still importable. My Norinco Tokarev 9mm clone however, was as unreliable a pistol as I have ever owned. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 12:30:18 PM EDT
[#5]
I think all of the M4geries on AR15.com will still be called M4geries because they are not true M4s in that they aren't select fire
 I think this lawsuit allows Bushy to use the name M4 that Colt tried to say was theirs exclusively. It doesn't keep us from being "wannabes" though... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 12:45:16 PM EDT
[#6]
Some of this is wrong. The M4 is the RO920 and the M4A1 is the RO921 or RO921HB. These are for export or LE sales: RO977 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Full Auto RO979 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Burst RO777 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Full Auto RO779 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Burst They are not US Property marked and are not M4s or M4A1s. They are marked "M4" which is a generic term Colt uses as you stated. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 1:26:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Colt can deflate it's self now. Ha Ha!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 1:53:32 PM EDT
[#8]
I thinks its worse than that I thought I read it included: M4 AR16 M16 match target Commando to name a few (Colt actually holds dozens of trademarks on names --->**See them here ** ) |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 2:14:29 PM EDT
[#9]
Most of this just went out the window. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 2:33:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Interesting that Colt didn't register the trademark "M4" until July 2003, and only had "Colt M4" before that, which was registered in 1999.
 So it would appear that "M4" was perfectly safe up until 2003. After reading the article, it appears that the terms in the first section are Colt's to lose. Another very key fact that was ignored or missed contained in that write up, was Colt challenging Bushmaster about the AR15 design, which they also hold a trademark to. This is the number one reason I'm glad Colt lost. If they would have challenged Bushy over the AR15 design, let's just say it wouldn't have been good had they won. I suggest everyone read, or re-read that article. Alot of people involved in this discussion are losing sight and that article is a very big wake up for the AR15 market as a whole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 2:55:31 PM EDT
[#11]
Trademarks are on names and never expire. Patents are on designs/inventions of a physical object and expire after a certain amount of time. This suit has nothing to do with the design of the AR-15. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 3:02:56 PM EDT
[#12]
Those listed are from Colts military website - I said those are what Colt designates it's military carbines, and they do. I never said the M4/M4A1 corresponded those Colt designations, because I wasn't aware of what they were. If I implied that I apologize. I'm sure you are correct on the nomenclature and those I listed are export/non US property militray carbines. Note that they are listed on the web page under "Colt M4 5.56mm Carbine" as variants so I think it is still safe to say they are M4/M4A1s, just not the "US Property" M4s. take a look at the M4 page on Colt.com. Really the point I was trying to make was that Colt is in fact the sole manufacturer of the M4/M4A1. If you are knowledgeable on Colt designations, I could use your help with the Colt section on my rollmark page, I don't have the full designation for every rollmark, as my references had holes. Most references came from Bigger Hammer but don't cover all the rollmarks. If you have time, could you take a look at the Colt rollmarks and captions on my tacked receiver rollmark thread and help me complete missing information and correct errors? The variation in Colt receiver rollmarks exceeds any in the industry by far, but the references are scant. If I can match the correct MT, AR, R, LE and RO designation with each rollmark, I would be very happpy. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 3:10:13 PM EDT
[#13]
Actually, it did have something to do with design, if not of the AR-15 in general, at least the look of the M4. Colt claimed the M4 look was Colt's "trade dress" and that making something that looked like an M4 infringed the mark. (Trade Dress is a distinctive, nonfunctional feature, which distinguishes a merchant's or manufacturer's goods or services from those of another.) Colt lost because it couldn't point to anything distinctive about the M4 that was non-functional. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 3:13:26 PM EDT
[#14]
I took it as if you were talking about US mil weapons. My apologies. It is not a M4 or M4A1 if it is not a US military weapon. It must be Standard A and be marked with US property to be considered a M4 or M4A1. RO979 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Burst does not equal Carbine, M4, 5.56mm, NSN 1005-01-231-0973
Yes
I will look at that. RO is any select fire made after 1984, I beleive MT is any civilian gun made during the ban. Such as MT6601, MT6700, MT6400C. LE6920 LE6921 LE6520 Anything with LE marks on the lower has the LE prefix. Note that there is a AR6520 and a LE6520. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 3:23:36 PM EDT
[#15]
The counterclaim on which Bushmaster won summary judgment referred only to the M4 mark. The court also threw out Colt's claims of trademark infringement on other marks, cooncluding either that there was nno evidence that Bushmaster ever used them or that the marks had become generic, but the court did not cancel the marks. As a result, if this decision were final today, anyone could call his M4gery an M4 and Colt couldn't do anything about it because the mark was revoked. But if someone else used the AR-15 mark, Colt could relitigate the issue (and maybe present better evidence). ETA: Note that the court declined to grant summary judgment on some of Colt's false advertising claims. I'm not sure exactly what those claims are or why Bushmaster seems only to have challanged them based on laches, but Bushmaster's not out of the woods yet. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 3:29:11 PM EDT
[#16]
Here is Colt's M4 page- they don't list the US Military M4/M4A1 designators
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 3:41:56 PM EDT
[#17]
Thanks. it's here now. Drives me crazy not knowing the designator for every rollmark/model name. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 3:51:07 PM EDT
[#18]
in my opinoion i think the U.S. government should sue colt then over the M16 name that colt clams it has sole rights too, and while they're at it, the M4 name also. whether anyone here wants to believe it or not, the M4 name plate and M16 name plate are in fact military names for these weapons. colt designed it, the U.S. government owns the names , it is that plain and simple. same goes for M14, M1 rifle, M1 carbine, M9 pistol, M1911 & M1911A1,M18 smoke grenades, M7 bayonets, M9 bayonets, etc, etc, etc. the list goes on and on.
i mean if colt owns sole rights to the M16 name then why do FN M16 A2's and A3's wear the M16 name on the lower reciever? think about it. why did the GM Hydramatic M16A1's wear the M16 name on the lower reciever, same for the Group Industries M16, the H&R M16's and even some very early Bushmaster(Quality Parts Co.) M16's. basically it's a pissing contest that no one will ever win. camaro |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 4:41:36 PM EDT
[#19]
IANAL; but it looks like Colt filed a seven point counterclaim with several alternative defenses. Point number six was that even if Colt was entitled to rights to the M4 name, it had lost them due to not enforcing trademark issues earlier (Colt first complained to Bushmaster about trademark stuff in 1986 and complained specifically about the M4 in 1991, 1994, 1997, etc.). Bushmaster contended that because Colt waited until 2004 to file suit, it had been negligent in pursuing its claim and wasn't entitled to anything. The judge said Bushmaster was not entitled to a summary judgment on that claim. It could conceivably go to trial; but since Bushmaster won most of what it needed on points 2,4, and 5 of their claim (pg. 41 and 42) I'm not sure why they would. The only claims that I saw that were definitely going to trial was point seven (Colt is not entitled to damages under the Lantham Act because it could not produce any actual evidence of consumer confusion). The judge did say he agreed with Bushmaster that there shouldn't be damages on this point; but that it would survive summary judgment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 5:48:54 PM EDT
[#20]
A point I think everyone is failing to realize is Colt's trademark was the commercial use of M4, not the military designation. By them being the designer and sold source of this carbine they wanted trademark for non U.S. government sales and LEO sales using the M4 trademark. That is my issue. This will not stop the military from using the term M4 for equipment but it will stop a non-military entity from using the trade mark. Strangest thing to me here is that the trademark from the term M4 was legal and enforcable. Now revoked. This is not right. To have the right and have it taken away is wrong. Again, this was for the commercial not/U.S. military designation. Just my 2 cents. This whole thing sucks. Basically the company who did ALL the work on this carbine has no rights to it and no intelectual property rights. No everyone and their brother is free to reverse engineer all their work and sell it using their name. It in not right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 6:12:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Correct since the RO920 and RO921/RO921HB aren't for sale except to the US mil. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 6:17:15 PM EDT
[#22]
Even though I am a big Colt fan, I will have to say you are wrong. The patent on the AR-15 has expired. Anybody is free to make it now. Just like more than one company makes telephones, automobiles, computers, etc. We live in a free market. This is what patents are for. You patent something and you get to reap the rewards for a certain amount of time because you did all the work. Then the market is opened up for anyone to make one. You are still confused between a patent and a trademark. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 6:28:46 PM EDT
[#23]
No, I am not confused. The trademark issue is not in my opinion genric when used in the commercial arena. I basically allows control in the commercial market only. If the government wanted to make an M4 bayonet, they would still be able to. the trademark would not affect them. But if another not mil company wanted to produce a carbine and call it M4, that would not fly. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 6:31:46 PM EDT
[#24]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2005 6:58:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Yes, I agree with you on that comment about the M4 being used as trademark for Colt marketing. However, when you talk about reverse engineering a rifle, you are talking about the design of the rifle. You stated:
Everyone is free to make an AR-15 under the capitalist free market we have. However, the cannont call it a "AR-15" since that is a trademark of Colt. Maybe we are talking about the same thing and not understanding each other. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 6:11:53 AM EDT
[#26]
I agree with this. I believe the judge/jury may have been biased in this case. Patents expire, but trademarks are renewable. If Colt had M4 trademarked, why would anyone else be legally able to use it? Isn't exclusivity of use that the whole point of a trademark? Otherwise everyone could call their generic cola "Coca-Cola" and it would no longer be unique. Why would we want that to happen? I don't. I like my Coke the way it is. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 6:16:47 AM EDT
[#27]
Right. So if the M4 is RO920 and the M4A1 is RO921 what is the military nomenclature for the RO921HB? I have never heard of an M4A1HB (does not mean it doesn't exist, of course). |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 6:24:05 AM EDT
[#28]
Listen ultimately Colt was just trying to settle a vandetta with Bushmaster.If the M4 trademark meant so much to them they should have sued the other 12 or 13 AR manufacturers that use the designation to refer to their own rifles.Hell CMMG makes SOCCOM mid weight barrels..I dont see Colt going after them or manufacturers that use M4 feedramps in their rifles....vandetta plain and simple.They deserved to lose.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 6:40:41 AM EDT
[#29]
But vendetta or not aside. IF Colt owned the trademark, and Bushmaster (or anyone else) infringed said trademark, where is the issue here. It's black and white. I don't see how a judge could decide otherwise. It was either an infringement or it was not. basically this judge rescinded a private corporations held trademark to be used by others. If that is not bias I don't know what is. Our legal system does not work on the basis of who "deserved to lose" it works on the basis of the law and precedent cases. If you start obsfucating trademark rights, then no trademark is safe from abuse. And with respect to the m4 ramps and barrels you seem to be confusing the term "trademark" and "patent". A trademark is a name, a word, not a physical thing. Like "Coca-Cola". The name, not the drink. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 6:57:54 AM EDT
[#30]
RO921 = M4A1 RO921HB = M4A1 It depends if the carbine is ordered with a midweight barrel. Most M4A1 have the midweight barrel after 2000. The midweight barrel became standard in 2003. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 7:17:55 AM EDT
[#31]
Thanks. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 8:58:47 AM EDT
[#32]
The judge granted summary judgment on the following points of Bushmaster's counterclaim: M4 was a generic term in the marketplace and couldn't be trademarked (kind of like if I tried to trademark "carbine" or "Internet") There is no likelihood of confusion among a commercially relevant group of consumers as to the source of Bushmaster's product - i.e. nobody is buying a Bushmaster and then later going "Hey, this isn't a Colt M4 carbine!" Colt's M4 design does not qualify as "trade dress" (distinctive design meant to identify it with a particular brand and not functional) - i.e. Beretta's Storm is a weapon with trade dress. It doesn't have to look that way to function. It looks that way because Beretta made a deliberate decision to add stylish flair to the weapon to distinguish it in the marketplace. Check pages 41-42 of the PDF for a summary of the decisions the judge made. He goes into great depth on each point if you read beyond that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 10:18:45 AM EDT
[#33]
I'll have to loook at it in more depth. I would like to know if Colt had a trademark on the term "M4" before it became generic term in the marketplace. You could also argue that "Coke" is a generic term in the market place, yet it still retains it's trademark status. Why should "M4" be any different? All popular products will become bywords, or generic terms in the marketplace, like "Kleenex" "Chlorox" "Prestone" "Tylenol". These all remain protected trademarks. Does that mean their trademark should be revoked by a judge? I certainly hope not. "generic term in the marketplace" is a very poor argument for trademark release, although I realize genericide does occur. Escalator was a trademark at one time. Any very successful product will cause this phenomenon to occur. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 10:28:57 AM EDT
[#34]
Not going to wade through that document again, but Colt's got the TM to M4 way late in the game, like 2000 or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 10:32:53 AM EDT
[#35]
I suppose the other argument is, if the military had designated their 5.56mm carbine the M6 or M7 would Colt still have used the name "M4" . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 12:00:38 PM EDT
[#36]
They trademarked "Colt M4" on September 3, 1999. They trademarked "M4" on July 8, 2003. If Bushy used the term "M4" before July 8, 2003, they have every right to use it, as Colt did not have a TM on "M4" before then. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 3:58:19 PM EDT
[#37]
I am no lawyer, but that is how I read it as well. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 4:52:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Bushy did use the term before.1991.Soldier of fortunes fighting firearms issue #1 they did call it M4 then.Also on one of their first add spreads showing the models they made a 14.5 barreled A2 carbine was listed as "M4"and was only in the beginning available as a LEO or Governmrnt use model only to get a complete weapon and the 14.5 assembly was available and that was before permanent flash hiders were an option.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2005 7:01:28 AM EDT
[#39]
There is a difference between having a trademark that later becomes a commodity identifier (like "Kleenex") and obtaining a trademark on an already generic term (like "soda"). In 2003, "M4" was already a commonly used term to identify a type of rifle produced by many manufacturers. That is why the judge nullifyed it - it should never have been granted in the first place. Obviously, "Colt M4" is different. If another company were to put that marking on their guns, it is quite likely that product confusion would occur. That is simply not the case with "M4." I fail to see how this decision makes the judge biased. Seems like he is just applying the law. I also fail to see how this is such a big deal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2005 7:24:51 AM EDT
[#40]
I was under the impression that Colt had the trademark from the beginning. I have learned this is not the case, and that Bushmaster had used the term M4 for marketing before Colt acquired the trademark. This changes my view since I made an assumption that proved to be false. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, the ruling is not unfair, and I rescind what I said about the judge appearing biased. Helps to know all the facts before making a statement. Under the circumstances I agree that any entity should be allowed to use the term "M4". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2005 12:49:47 PM EDT
[#41]
My comment wasn't directed solely in your direction, _DR.
I just wanted to say that some terms BECOME common usage after they are trademarked and others do say beforehand. The latter should never be allowed to be trademarked. Also, if a company doesn't consistently defend it's trademark, it will lose the ability to do so. I don't think that applies here at all, however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 1:11:32 AM EDT
[#42]
and I see here that the TDP was released improperly in JAN96 but the contract between the Army and BFI for 65 rifles was in 1990.
back in the day, where was the outrage? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 2:04:39 AM EDT
[#43]
Still love the Colt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 7:31:28 AM EDT
[#44]
I was reading at Gun Zone that is was actually NSWC Crane that improperly released the TDP during the SOPMOD solicitation and that they handed it out to something like 29 different contractors. Wonder who else got it? ETA: Same source says TDP for M4 was not complete until 1996. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 11:08:27 AM EDT
[#45]
I liken the M4 and Commando names to descriptive names. There is DIET Coke and DIET Pepsi. Coke cant have the trademark of DIET just the Coke part. Thus it is with Colt and M4 and Commando.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2006 9:14:47 AM EDT
[#46]
Well, well, well. It seems the whole Bushy marketing thing is based on fraud and hoax!!
 I've got three of their rifles, they work fine. But as a result of these revelations, I'll never buy another thing from them again on the principle of the whole thing. That Bushmaster early 1990s "contract" was only for 65 carbines. And, they were on Eagle Arms receivers! No wonder Bushy doesn't brag about it. Now, with the Colt lawsuit finally [ruled in favor of Bushmaster and H&K] out of the way, it'll be interesting to find our what that Rock Island Arsenal [a year or so ago?] order consisted of. E.g., parts or rifles. Hard to figure that it was just for $3.5+ million dollars just for parts alone! That would be enough for close to 6000 rifles/carbines. I read the government announcement on the Army Rock Island Arsenal web page myself.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
