maxsell being sued by glock and 79yr old owner is scared

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately perhaps, the realities of intellectual property law are such that an owner of trademark/service mark/trade dress rights must zealously and diligently protect those rights or risk losing them. That's how many trademarks, like Aspirin and Kleenex, which once meant a specific product from a specific manufacturer, became generic terms for acetylsalicylic acid and facial tissue.
 
dajowi ....Glock suing over this is just about money and nothing else. There is no way that the manufacture of this junk threatens Glock's interests. I can't imagine that enough of these are even sold to bother with.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
Glock DOESN'T need the $$$$$$..........they are going after this guy to discourage others who might try to copy Glocks "trade dress".

If a manufacturer is aware of unauthorized use of their trade dress and does not take action I believe it can be used as a defense to damages later on.

example: If Glock is aware that several companies are producing airsoft, water guns and sprinkler nozzels that are nearly identical to a Glock 17 and takes no action..........and several years later a company makes or imports a Glock 17 BBQ lighter.....it would be difficult for Glock to show it was damaged due to its previous knowledge of unauthorized "lookalikes".


I find it odd that the owner of Maxsell is taking to the streets and a webpage to tell everyone how awful Glock is treating him........fifteen minutes with an attorney should have told him to stop selling fake Glocks.

Further, the ATF determination letter (that these are not firearms) has NOTHING to do with this lawsuit. The owner of Maxsell is an idiot.
 
My $.02.

Even though the Glock look-alike is clearly not a real gun, many people will ASSUME that since it looks like a Glock, it is an actual Glock product made as a blank gun. Yes, there are lots of people who are that easily fooled. If it is of such poor quality, and looks like a Glock, this could hurt Glocks reputation for quality.

A simple cease-and-desist would have been a diplomatic (and likely, effective) move on Glock's part.
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if this didn't happen. When they didn't stop the lawsuit came next.

BTW Glock is not the only company to vigiorously fight for their copyrighted material. Disney is one of the most aggressive. Try printing up some T-shirts with Mickey on them and selling them.
 
jmr40 .....BTW Glock is not the only company to vigiorously fight for their copyrighted material. Disney is one of the most aggressive. Try printing up some T-shirts with Mickey on them and selling them.
Click to expand...
Or a high school using "clip art" off the internet that just happens to look like the logo used by an NFL or NCAA team.

"Oops, were sorry" doesn't mean they give you a pass.
 
So why ain't glock suing Springfield for their XD line? I think many (including myself) with little affection or knowledge of tupperware guns would and have made the mistake of thinking the XD was a glock until noting logos and wording on the gun...

Brent
 
Then again look at the issue of Glock and KWA (an airsoft manufacturer) KWA is a sort of OEM manufacturer for a company called KSC. They basically take KSC designs (manufactured in Japan I believe) and manufacture them under license in Taiwan with stronger reinforced parts for the US market.

Anyway KWA made pretty perfect 1:1 replicas of various Glock models (17,18,19,26,34, and a select fire version of the 19, and 26) Since KWA mostly markets it's products in the USA, Glock told them to basically stop (I'm not sure if it ever went to court) SO what KWA did was develop the ATP. Internally it is still a KWA Glock, all internal part are interchangeable. All they did is make the slide and frame a bit more ergonomic and less blocky. Apparently that's good enough for Glock since they left KWA alone.

Here's the ATP for anyone who wants to see it: http://kwausa.com/products/ptp/atp/

So honestly I'm not seeing how suddenly the Maxsell replica is a problem since it's basically the same as the KWA ATP. A Glock with some ergonomic and aesthetic changes so it doesn't look too much like a Glock. So if Glock is fine with the ATP, I don't see how they can suddenly complain about it now that Maxsell is doing the same thing.
 
The ATP you linked to looks more like a hybrid of an HK and a couple Turkish guns than a Glock...

... AND you just reinforced the argument about not allowing precedents to be set.
 
Unfortunately perhaps, the realities of intellectual property law are such that an owner of trademark/service mark/trade dress rights must zealously and diligently protect those rights or risk losing them. That's how many trademarks, like Aspirin and Kleenex, which once meant a specific product from a specific manufacturer, became generic terms for acetylsalicylic acid and facial tissue.
Click to expand...

While the point is valid, particularly for aspirin(As there are other brands that use the word aspirin in their names for the same drug). I think it is important to distinguish between inadvertent genericization from the public and intentional infringements by a company. Other examples being, to xerox, velcro, jell-o, googling, qtips. etc. These were all brought about inadvertently by the public as a matter of those products or companies being the first or most recognized producers of that class of goods. Rather than companies intentionally infringing on IP.
 
Last edited:
sigcurious said:
While the point is valid, particularly for aspirin(As there are other brands that use the worth aspirin in their names for the same drug)....
Click to expand...
Which those companies can do only because Bayer is no longer able to protect its trademark in "Aspirin."

sigcurious said:
...Other examples being, to xerox, velcro, jell-o, googling, qtips. etc. These were all brought about inadvertently by the public as a matter of those products or companies being the first or most recognized producers of that class of goods. Rather than companies intentionally infringing on IP.
Click to expand...
It can be very much a "chicken-or-egg" matter: one reason that trademark litigation can be so complex and expensive; and a reason that owners of trademark who want to protect them are so aggressive about litigating infringements.
 
Frank Ettin said:
It can be very much a "chicken-or-egg" matter: one reason that trademark litigation can be so complex and expensive; and a reason that owners of trademark who want to protect them are so aggressive about litigating infringements.
Click to expand...
^^^ This.

Ever sit down in a restaurant that serves Pepsi products and ask for a "Diet Coke"? At least in this corner of the universe, the waitperson is always VERY careful to say, "We don't have Coca Cola here, is a Diet Pepsi okay?"

And generally it is okay. Who cares, cola is cola, right? But I asked once, MANY years ago, why a waitress was so careful to point out that I'd be getting a Diet Pepsi rather than a Diet Coke. She explained that Coca Cola has mystery shoppers who do nothing other than seek out restaurants who serve Pepsi products and don't make that clear if a customer orders a "Coke."

That was many years ago, and I don't know if the explanation was true even then but it made sense. And I noticed just yesterday that a waitress carefully pointed out when my wife asked for a Diet Coke that "We don't have Diet Coke, is Diet Pepsi okay?" Coca Cola has to do that, otherwise "Coke" will become a generic description, just as happened with Kleenex and Xerox.
 
Aguila Blanca .......Ever sit down in a restaurant that serves Pepsi products and ask for a "Diet Coke"? At least in this corner of the universe, the waitperson is always VERY careful to say, "We don't have Coca Cola here, is a Diet Pepsi okay?"

And generally it is okay. Who cares, cola is cola, right? But I asked once, MANY years ago, why a waitress was so careful to point out that I'd be getting a Diet Pepsi rather than a Diet Coke. She explained that Coca Cola has mystery shoppers who do nothing other than seek out restaurants who serve Pepsi products and don't make that clear if a customer orders a "Coke."
Click to expand...
It's less likely fear of "mystery shoppers" and more likely customers like me that can tell the difference........Coke is the real thing, Pepsi is for Yankees.;)
(Don't put a Pepsi in front of me.)


That was many years ago, and I don't know if the explanation was true even then but it made sense. And I noticed just yesterday that a waitress carefully pointed out when my wife asked for a Diet Coke that "We don't have Diet Coke, is Diet Pepsi okay?" Coca Cola has to do that, otherwise "Coke" will become a generic description, just as happened with Kleenex and Xerox.
Click to expand...
"Coke" has been a generic term for a carbonated soft drink in the South for decades..........typically it goes something like this:
Waitress: What you want to drink, hon?
Customer: I'll have a coke.
Waitress: What kind?
Customer:mmmmm.....Dr. Pepper

Sadly, in the larger metropolitan areas the influx of carpetbaggers has lessend the likelyhood of the conversation above.

total-county.gif
 
"Coke" has been a generic term for a carbonated soft drink in the South for decades..........typically it goes something like this:
Waitress: What you want to drink, hon?
Customer: I'll have a coke.
Waitress: What kind?
Customer:mmmmm.....Dr. Pepper
Click to expand...

LoL, that drove my wife nuts when she first came here (She's from England).

When I asked for a pop, it drove her even more nuts.:D
 
MAN... I will be derned... they pegged my county correct... Note the one single yellow county in the florida panhandle... That would be Walton county... And I live in it... Ask for a Coke and you get "the real thing"... Ask for a soda and they will ask what kind or tell you what they sell...

Ask for a pop and they will possibly roll their eyes as they think to themself... Dang yankee...

Ask for an iced tea and it will be sweet unless specified "unsweet"...

Brent
 
When I was a kid, my Sicilian grandparents in Massachusetts (and their siblings and friends) all called it "tonic.". I haven't heard that outside of eastern MA.
 
I am dissappointed in the soft drink survey. Why were sody water and belly washer not included? We get chuckles about the various generic names for products, especially in the south and moreso in Texas where I live.

Back tothe original topic, I'll just use this as another reason I don't like Glock. I am not sure about right or wrong on the issue, I just don't like Glock.
 
"the real thing", Glock vs S&W....

I don't know how this topic turned into soda-pops we all know & love but to get back to the MAIN subject, I recall Glock and Smith & Wesson having a huge legal dispute over the S&W SIGMA pistols in the early-mid 1990s.
Glock had a big share of the duty pistol & armed defense market with their "state of the art" wonder-gun and wasn't very happy when S&W jumped into the polymer pistol arena.

I agree with big firms or major corporations that sue/take legal action against smaller firms. These companies rip off & mislead the general public, then cry or whine when they get caught.
Years ago, I saw a print ad for a used-low end furniture store chain with Cindy Crawfords photo. Did she or her lawyers allow the ad? Was she paid for it? Wouldnt she have a conflict with Rooms To Go(a large business she DOES do ads for)?
That's just an example. ;)

Clyde
PS: I'm always fond of Vernors(a MI area staple) & Cheerwine(a cherry flavored soft drink sold in the mid-south). :)
 
cream sodas are nice....my dad worked and retired with "Coca-Cola Foods) I believe the minutemaid OrangeJuice dept is coke....things remembered from growing up were 'new coke' was a mistake. coca cola is dominating the entire globe...more soda from their corporation travels more than anywhere else so pepsi is beat hands down. only a few countries don't sell coke for political reasons
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top