Who Owns The M4 Name?

APPARENTLY no one, according to a federal court. The term is generic. The United States District Court in Maine recently ruled that
Colt does not own a valid tradem ark for the designation “M4.” The decision cam e in a summary judgmen t gran ted in favor of
Bushm aster Firearm s in a tradem ark case brought by Colt Defense, in which Colt accused Bushmaster of infringing on 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 infringem ent claim s, the Court granted judgment for Bushmaster on its claim for cancellation of Colt’s
federal trademark registration for the name “M4.” Bushmaster spokesman and chairman, Richard Dyke, said he is gratified with the decision , not only for Bushmaster, but for the entire firearm s industry. “Colt has for years made all sorts of claims [about intellectual
property], but 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 affirm ed a prior recommended decision of a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the case. Among other things, the Magistrate’s decision held that “M4” is a generic term that 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 gran ted judgment for Bushmaster that Colt’s federal trademark registration forthe M4 should be cancelled.

The court also 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. Additionally, the Court dismissed Colt’s claims for
infringement of the term s 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 that Colt could recover no damages on its only remaining claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.