Jump to content

KWA Shot Show 2016. Mp40, Colt Python


Brigg

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'll just put his here, what you do with this information is up to you.  I should note that some information is not up to date, as there was some location consolidation that has not been changed on their web site.  

The corporate headquarters is in Bondoufle France

 

http://www.cybergun.com/en/about-us/investors/the-group/locations/

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, just out of curiosity then, What guns have cybergun prevented from being released using licenses or trademarks which don't apply to it?

 

Have they prevented Stens coming out by claiming a license to FN Herstal or something? Im not seeing how claiming a non applicable right would stop a company like WE or KWA from releasing something.

 

WE's SOP seems to be just ignoring Cybergun, and I doubt any legal threat would give them even a second's pause in producing a gun anyway. Umarex didnt stop them from producing an Mp5 or Mp7, And CG didnt stop them from making the P90. And a license to Auto Ordnance sure as hell isnt going to stop them from releasing a Thompson.

 

And KWA isnt just a small company with no lawyers, otherwise from what youre saying, Cybergun should have sued over the Makarov or Tokarev, or hell, their entire line of AKs by claiming a Kalashnikov license.

 

I would think theyre wise enough to realize that frivolous lawsuit leaves them open to being counter-sued for damages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at the joke that is the French copyright system and the stuff they have gotten away with.  It may only apply in some instances to France/Europe but still. It's not so much stopping releases but sticking their dirty fingers in everyone's pies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

So, just out of curiosity then, What guns have cybergun prevented from being released using licenses or trademarks which don't apply to it?

 

Have they prevented Stens coming out by claiming a license to FN Herstal or something? Im not seeing how claiming a non applicable right would stop a company like WE or KWA from releasing something.

 

WE's SOP seems to be just ignoring Cybergun, and I doubt any legal threat would give them even a second's pause in producing a gun anyway. Umarex didnt stop them from producing an Mp5 or Mp7, And CG didnt stop them from making the P90. And a license to Auto Ordnance sure as hell isnt going to stop them from releasing a Thompson.

 

And KWA isnt just a small company with no lawyers, otherwise from what youre saying, Cybergun should have sued over the Makarov or Tokarev, or hell, their entire line of AKs by claiming a Kalashnikov license.

 

I would think theyre wise enough to realize that frivolous lawsuit leaves them open to being counter-sued for damages.

While CG can't do much to actually stop manufacturers from producing something, they can and do go after the retailers selling it.  They have been fairly successful in the past by bullying retailers into either a) paying cybergun for "damages" or B) discontinuing sales of certain items.  Sometimes both. 

If the retailer(s) can't sell it, then the manufacturer(s) takes a hit as well. 

CG is in the process of sue WE over the P90, and other guns, but it won't do much good as far as preventing them from producing guns.

 

As for the Mak/Tok thing...CG do not have a license for anything that would cover the mak/tok.

As far as the AK goes...With the number of r/s manufacturers that produce AKs, they're not much CG do .  They can't go after anyone for "trade-dress" violations on an AK. Only if they try to use a name that CG has the license for, then they can go after "trademark" violations.  

 

Umarex put enough pressure on WE to change their MP7 into a thing that kind of looks like an MP7 (but not really).  I think that once again comes down more to pressuring retailers than it does manufacturer, but IDK. 

 

Cybergun's latest "trick" in the works is to get the actual r/s manufacturers that they have licensing contracts with to go after airsoft retailers directly.  That way CG can maintain a "distance" that they think will shield them from backlash both legal action and in public opinion.

CG's primary focus for legal action is against US retailers, as the US is the largest airsoft market for them.

 

The good thing for us "end users"  is that there's a pretty good "grey market" that no one has been able to do much about.  We can all get most anything we want, it's just less convenient to get some things than it is others. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Kwa don't make the vector anymore, they had to stop. There was a thread on here about it and a member on here had all the details to boot. But for the life of me I can't remember the members name. . .

 

That would be me.  heheh....

 

The lawsuit between Yih Kai / KWA vs. KRISS was settled out of court sometime in 2014.   That said, Yih Kai still can't manufacture the GBB Vector.  

They probably still make some parts. ie Magazine.  but I have no follow up source from Yih Kai to verify.  

 

On the other hand, all the legacy members from KWA USA have all GONE now.  xKingsizex also left KWA last week.  He's the last good guy that I know from KWA.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, just out of curiosity then, What guns have cybergun prevented from being released using licenses or trademarks which don't apply to it?

 

Have they prevented Stens coming out by claiming a license to FN Herstal or something? Im not seeing how claiming a non applicable right would stop a company like WE or KWA from releasing something.

 

WE's SOP seems to be just ignoring Cybergun, and I doubt any legal threat would give them even a second's pause in producing a gun anyway. Umarex didnt stop them from producing an Mp5 or Mp7, And CG didnt stop them from making the P90. And a license to Auto Ordnance sure as hell isnt going to stop them from releasing a Thompson.

 

And KWA isnt just a small company with no lawyers, otherwise from what youre saying, Cybergun should have sued over the Makarov or Tokarev, or hell, their entire line of AKs by claiming a Kalashnikov license.

 

I would think theyre wise enough to realize that frivolous lawsuit leaves them open to being counter-sued for damages.

 

When I was working at KWA.  We purposely name  the Tokarev as TT-33 and the Makarov as MKV just to avoid any lawsuit from CG.  

There is no trade dress on these two guns (unlike Glock)  as long as you don't use the trademarked name you are good to go.

 

That said, I'm not sure if CG have anymore money to sue other companies.  Have you look at their stock price?!  

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/ALCYB:FP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no. Vfc has a rep for releasing slightly unfinished replicas, but they also make alterations down the line. The WE ak has had changes made to it, as has most of thier rifles (pistols not so much but that appears to be changing).

 

I still remember the days when only TM made a skirmish ready aeg and the others (classic army, ics and vfc) needed new this and that, to get going (sometimes you got lucky though but not for long).

 

But isn't it sad that I still remember buying a replica that I knew would need tweaking to get skirmishable?

 

It would be great if a replica came out of the box 12 month skirmish ready. But, in a bad way, I'm kind of use to the idea that the replica will need tweaking to get skirmishable. Sad indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.