Here’s an interesting case result that was sent in to me by Joe Cool (you can find his new blog here). In reference to Joe Cool’s blog space I leave it for them to explain who they are:
This blog is organised by a group of concerned airsoft shops, users, players and team organisers. We intend to report all the behind the scenes shenanigans regarding Airsoft and the people who sell, buy and produce these products. We will tell you all those things that the “Maintstream Airsoft Media” refuses to tell you because they have a vested economic interest in not doing so. Our reports will be painful for some, but the truth hurts. (Joe Cool’s Airsoft Shinanigins [sic])
In reference the the case =it seems that this case can stand as a defense for making Airsoft replicas of the M4 series, and for a defense for “Trade Dress” lawsuits made in relation to the COLT M4 name:
In its lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Colt cited acts of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, false advertising, patent infringement, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices. Colt sought injunctive relief and damages against the two companies and has lost on all counts.The Court held that:
(1) the M4 is a generic term and is not an identifier of Colt as a sole source for such firearms and that Colt’s federal trademark registration for the M4 is cancelled
(2) Dismissed Colt’s claim for infringement of M4 trade dress
(3) Dismissed Colt’s claims for infringement of the terms M16, CAR, MATCH TARGET, AR-15 and COMMANDO
—————————————————————————-
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.
reference: bushmaster_case.pdf (court of Maine, Colt Vs Bushmaster)
Update: Someone asked why we’d posted this now as the court ruling isn’t new. The simple answer is that this is the first time we’ve been notified about it, and it was a recent addition to the Joe Cool pages.
