Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Quigley_Sharps, Dec 22, 2005.

  1. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    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.
  2. sniper-66

    sniper-66 Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Goodie, I hate colt, one more nail in the coffin. Ever wonder what the prancing horse was, I think now it is a horse that just took a bullet and is falling over! Ooops, did I say that out loud?
  3. 155gunner

    155gunner Monkey+++ Founding Member

    That is definitely good news. I too have a great dislike for all things Colt and it's nice to see them put in their place. b::
  4. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Nice barrels, though. Colt was too big for their britches.
  5. E.L.

    E.L. Moderator of Lead Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Me too, except for this certain 1927 "Ejercito Argentino".... ;)
  6. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    I'm not fond of Colt either. Very over rated. I have had several Colt ARs and a 1911.I wouldn't trade my Bushmaster Shorty Carbine for any Colt I've ever had. Same goes for my Springfield 1911.
  7. 155gunner

    155gunner Monkey+++ Founding Member

    I hear ya!! Colt don't make'em like they used to. :shock:
  8. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    I dont care for their pollitics but still wouldnt mind haveing some of their older stuff at least.
  9. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    I guess we don't have to use the term MForgery anymore either
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary