View Full Version : ARMS now suing LaRue
EzGoingKev
10-21-09, 06:53
Posted over on TOS. (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=219&t=179975)
diving dave
10-21-09, 06:58
Thats BS. Screw ARMS.
I'm surprised it took this long.
There are two sides to this. On the one hand it's sad that so many companies are so litigation-happy. On the other hand, what do you expect when you knowingly and repeatedly trash other companies and products, and even use their numbering systems as the basis for your product names? Especially a company that you know is litigation-happy?
threebanger
10-21-09, 08:48
jeezz.......so now we've got Troy Ind. & LaRue. Who's next on Mr. Swan's list? Truly sad IMHO.
jeezz.......so now we've got Troy Ind. & LaRue. Who's next on Mr. Swan's list? Truly sad IMHO.
why did they go after Troy??
militarymoron
10-21-09, 09:14
why did they go after Troy??
because 'troy' is made up from letters of the alphabet and ARMS trademarked any combination of letters that can be combined into names or words.
jeezz.......so now we've got Troy Ind. & LaRue. Who's next on Mr. Swan's list? Truly sad IMHO.
I believe they're suing Magpul over the MBUS as well.
They sued Troy, and I believe they won, because he used to work for them, basically.
Littlelebowski
10-21-09, 09:36
because 'troy' is made up from letters of the alphabet and ARMS trademarked any combination of letters that can be combined into names or words.
Good lord..... Screw you ARMS.
Outlander Systems
10-21-09, 09:43
Yeah? Well, ARMS mounts suck ass. Apparently, people realise this, and the litigiousness is due to not being able to move product. If they were balling out of control, they probably wouldn't give a flip.
"This bush league psyche-out stuff. Laughable, man - ha ha!" -Jesus
The funny thing I read out of that thread started by Mark Larue, was that Swan trademarked 5.56mm, 7.62mm and 50BMG. Like one of the other posters wrote, is the guy going to sue Winchester, Remington, Hornady, and anyone else who uses/makes those calibers? What a douche. :rolleyes: I guess suing people is the only way to make money when your product sucks.
That's a lot of money going towards court costs, attorneys, etc etc. Why not just take the money and make a better product?
decodeddiesel
10-21-09, 09:54
I guess suing people is the only way to make money when your product sucks.
This is what it all boils down to. What a joke.
CarlosDJackal
10-21-09, 10:05
That's a lot of money going towards court costs, attorneys, etc etc. Why not just take the money and make a better product?
Not to mention the bad publicity and the resulting lost customers (like myself). I have a couple of ARMS mounts and was looking into a couple of their future products for purchase.
Now all they've done is pissed me off enough that I took the link to their website off my "Favorites" list. Besides pissing me off and loosing my business, all they're really doing is pushing the cost of everyone's products higher. The court costs and any subsequent awards will eventually be passed onto the consumers.
Screw ARMS and their products!! :mad:
That's a lot of money going towards court costs, attorneys, etc etc. Why not just take the money and make a better product?
Apparently some people dont understand business concepts as well as you and I and well, everyone else in the damn world, haha.
That is just rediculous. I used to play competitive paintball for a number of years and there was a company in that industry that tried to patent everything on gods greens earth and then sue everyone else too. They are seriously struggling right now. Maybe ARMS will fall as well. i hope so anyway...
rubberneck
10-21-09, 10:35
Swan trademarked 5.56mm, 7.62mm and 50BMG.
How in god's name could the government allow him to trademark the name of a cartridge that was introduced decades before anyone at ARMS was even born?
Gutshot John
10-21-09, 10:40
How in god's name could the government allow him to trademark the name of a cartridge that was introduced decades before anyone at ARMS was even born?
I'm deeply skeptical of that claim, never mind that it would be sustained in court. This is simply a way for one business to try and drive a competitor out of business or weaken him by lawsuit.
This won't ever see a courtroom and the only ones who win will be the lawyers.
Count me as another who won't ever buy ARMS again (not that I ever bought that much).
Sounds like ARMS is butt-hurt because their products suck and everyone knows it now. If that's the only way they can make their money then so be it. They won't ever see any of mine.
Well, this makes it easy for me to take them out of the equation on any future purchases...
I believe they're suing Magpul over the MBUS as well.
They sued Troy, and I believe they won, because he used to work for them, basically.
..and what did Magpul do on the MBUS that crosses into their product line??
Sounds to me there is relationship with an attorney and has turned this pit bull loose. Kind of like a drift net so to speak.
The 5.56 / BMG deal has to be boggus.:confused:
Funny thing is I tried to be a dealer of theirs for years and they basically ignored me. Now they send me dealer packets out of the blue and try and play all nice and I just ignore them.
CarlosDJackal
10-21-09, 11:00
How in god's name could the government allow him to trademark the name of a cartridge that was introduced decades before anyone at ARMS was even born?
Not to mention that the courts have already ruled that numbers cannot be trademarks (IE: Intel's 386 and 486 processor cases). :confused:
..and what did Magpul do on the MBUS that crosses into their product line??
I would assume that it's the fact that it's a spring-loaded sight, but I have no idea.
#17, #17, #17, #17, #17, #17, #17.
oh now i've gone and done it.
The_War_Wagon
10-21-09, 11:37
Maybe they'll sue John Lennon's estate for, "#1, #1, #1..." :p
I would assume that it's the fact that it's a spring-loaded sight, but I have no idea.
Wouldn't that mean Matech is next on their list to sue...:rolleyes:
Posted elsewhere by Mark. Help where you can:
LE/Mil folks,
As some of you know, we are under litigation attack by A.R.M.S. (Dick Swan) for using the numerals 1 and 7 in our LT-170 mount part number. He filed for and last spring outrageously got a trademark on "#17" and then he sued us. IIRC, he also trademarked 7.62, 5.56, 50BMG, etc., etc.
I'm more than a little perturbed.
One of his interrogatories (sic) is what evidence I have of soldiers ever having an A.R.M.S. mount fail on them. Ask and ye shall receive.
I know a gent that says that roughly 20% of the A.R.M.S. mounts have to be replaced before he can run the guys in his sniper course. Says they come in flopping in one way or the other, levers loose, roll pins shot, whatever. And these are the ones that are left of the ones that haven't already been replaced.
I have replaced numerous busted A.R.M.S. units in the past, and have heard more stories than I can count ... the gist of one story - "busted levers on square ranges crunching under the boots of trainees" ...
So, I am officially offering to replace/exchange any in-op/broken A.R.M.S. mounts for the LaRue product that best fits as a replacement.
I'll do it even at the unit level. If your team has a bucket full of dead A.R.M.S. mounts of any sort laying around, then put them to good use. I am aware that due to NSN numbers, many are the failed units are likely sh*tcanned and a replacement bought (with taxpayer money). Either way, I don't care how many ... besides, it won't be nothing compared to the attorney bills we are incurring weekly.
I do ask that some sort of note be written that says what the problem is, i.e. broken levers, loosened roll pins, stripped-out threads, etc.
Let me know about any and all A.R.M.S failures you know about ... even if you threw them away, no worries, please let me know about it here.
We may have to spend $100,000 dollars to fend off this attack, and that's money we can't buy equipment with, money we can't hire more folks with, money shot to hell.
Any help from you guys will be much appreciated.
v/r
Mark LaRue
Wouldn't that mean Matech is next on their list to sue...:rolleyes:
Who knows. The first time I saw the MBUS my first thought was "Dick is gonna sue them".
Who knows. The first time I saw the MBUS my first thought was "Dick is gonna sue them".
Im confused... How the hell can he sue... That would be like a car company suing another car company because it has 4 round wheels... This guys name is very fitting.:D I wonder if he can sue someone for calling him DICK.:p
Belmont31R
10-21-09, 12:27
Im amazed people still buy from some of these companies with some of the BS they pull on good people in the industry.
Littlebear
10-21-09, 12:27
Well, that simplifies the equation as to which bases and scope mounts to buy from now on... To be honest, Bobro is the only other brand I would seriously consider besides LaRue.
We will pass the word around. It is going to take a lot of customers skipping "Mr. Dick's" products and investing in LaRue's equipment to make up for the litigation costs...
Does anyone have "Mr. Dick's" personal e-mail address?
Belmont31R
10-21-09, 12:36
Well, that simplifies the equation as to which bases and scope mounts to buy from now on... To be honest, Bobro is the only other brand I would seriously consider besides LaRue.
We will pass the word around. It is going to take a lot of customers skipping "Mr. Dick's" products and investing in LaRue's equipment to make up for the litigation costs...
Does anyone have "Mr. Dick's" personal e-mail address?
Theres more reasons to boycott ARMS besides their sue happy owner. Their mounts suck, and are vastly inferior to other brands. They warranty is crap. Dick suing everyone he can is just icing on the cake.
Going to be interesting. The thing is Swan holds the trademark for #17, and if Larue is using LT-170 its going to be very hard to say he infringed on the trademark. This could very well be like many are saying a fishing expedition for easy money. I do hope that Mr. Larue wins and if he seeks reimbursement of legal fees is granted them.
Also, Swan DOES own the trademark for 5.56 (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4001:kao6bo.3.3) as well as 7.62 (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4001:kao6bo.4.3). There was no trademark for 50BMG that I could find.
He owns a total of 30 trademarks including 6.8, .50 Cal, throw lever, SILHOUETTE, Spartan. Link I provided wouldn't work.
Also, Swan DOES own the trademark for 5.56 (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4001:kao6bo.3.3) as well as 7.62 (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4001:kao6bo.4.3). There was no trademark for 50BMG that I could find.
Word Mark 5.56
Goods and Services IC 011. US 013 021 023 031 034. G & S: Flashlights; Lights
So does that mean he only has 5.56 rights when dealing with lights??
Word Mark 5.56
Goods and Services IC 011. US 013 021 023 031 034. G & S: Flashlights; Lights
So does that mean he only has 5.56 rights when dealing with lights??
I don't know, but it is the type of service/business they put it under.
He owns a total of 30 trademarks including 6.8, .50 Cal, throw lever, SILHOUETTE, Spartan. Link I provided wouldn't work.
IANAL but I think he has to show active use of the mark in commerce before it can be granted and he has to maintain such active use. Does he actively use all these marks?
Going to be interesting. The thing is Swan holds the trademark for #17, and if Larue is using LT-170 its going to be very hard to say he infringed on the trademark. This could very well be like many are saying a fishing expedition for easy money. I do hope that Mr. Larue wins and if he seeks reimbursement of legal fees is granted them.
Also, Swan DOES own the trademark for 5.56 (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4001:kao6bo.3.3) as well as 7.62 (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4001:kao6bo.4.3). There was no trademark for 50BMG that I could find.
He owns a total of 30 trademarks including 6.8, .50 Cal, throw lever, SILHOUETTE, Spartan. Link I provided wouldn't work.
77633828 is his 5.56 SN# based off the site you linked for those interested...
Go to the ARMS website and see some of this stuff too (yes, they posted it on their site).
I dunno why I found this to be funny (on the ARMS site) look up the Throw Lever and then the lever itself TMs. They both have been first used/in commerce since approx., 1-1-1987 but they weren't patented until 04 and 08 respectively. I would figure that around 1990/91ish everything would be clear and good, but 15+ years later you file the paperwork? That just strikes me as 1) odd 2) somewhat laughable considering the success of your competition using a similar yet more effective product...
Does he actively use all these marks?
....I'm beginning to wonder if they were not registered simply for the use of future litegation.
....I'm beginning to wonder if they were not registered simply for the use of future litegation.
I think so as well. There was a small group of lawyers who did something similar with patents and trademarks and basically threatened to litigate you into the poorhouse if you didn't pay them.
And I checked, 24 of these trademarks are active and alive. Curious who they are going to try and go after next.
When in doubt, sue. What a guy. I wonder who he thinks he would sell to if he successfully knocks of the competition? I'd use factory iron sights for the rest of my life if he were the only source for an optic mount.
montanadave
10-21-09, 15:37
Never bought anything from ARMS but have always received outstanding service and products from LaRue. Don't think I'll change a thing.
Well, this does it, I'm going to order my next set of stuff from LaRue ASAP. As much as I love the Dillo Dust and other goodies, I'm willing to forego them if it will help save $$ to fight this ridiculous litigation.:eek:
Just got my recent order today in the mail from Mark and the gang. I got some nice goodies and another thing of dillo dust which was good b/c I was out. I hope our small contributions will help allieve the cost of the frivilous lawsuit!
Just remember where ARMS is located and where LaRue is located. Might help you understand the issue a little better...
;)
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-21-09, 15:53
NEWS FLASH:
Larue trademarks the word Ass-hat, Dick Swan forced to commit suicide.
I don't need anything from Larue, but I might order something anyway. I hate swapping bipods from rifle to rifle anyway.
The sad thing is that Swan could reciprocate the offer to replace Larue mounts with Swan gear, but as far as I can tell, it wouldn't cost him anything.
Companies do the offset number thing all the time, nothing new there.
I did a trademark search for "Richard Swan" and here's what I got. He really is attempting to TM some ridiculous shit, like "#17" "Throw lever" "7.62" etc. Here are current filed apps by Swan:
Link didn't work so here are LIVE trademarks by swan''
#17
A.R.M.S. BROWN
POWER MOUNT
.50 CAL
7.62
6.8
5.56
A.R.M.S.
SELECTIVE LIGHT & POWERE
R.O.F.
THROW LEVER
SILHOUETTE
RING OF FIRE
SPARTAN
SELECTIVE INTEGRATED RAIL
S.I.R.
THROW LEVER
A.R.M.S.
SWAN
GLACIER GLOVE
Trying to fix link...sorry
N
There was no trademark for 50BMG that I could find.
The trademark owned by swan is ".50 CAL"
Link (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:q78olb.5.8)
How do you trademark .50 cal? What a douche bag. Never cared for ARMS stuff and now I really don't care for it.
How do you trademark .50 cal? What a douche bag. Never cared for ARMS stuff and now I really don't care for it.
...the bigger question is why tm .50 cal??
The last post by noops is pretty darn interesting in what he has in the works / apps.
If you cannot beat the comp. via better service / product.??? Hmmmm...
Isn't 170, 153 bigger than 17?
Sounds silly. Like someone has way too much time on their hands.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-21-09, 18:18
Word Mark .50 CAL
Goods and Services IC 011. US 013 021 023 031 034. G & S: Flashlights; Lights
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 77633846
Filing Date December 16, 2008
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Owner (APPLICANT) Swan, Richard E. INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 171 West Street E. Bridgewater MASSACHUSETTS 02379
Attorney of Record Stephen Holmes
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Wish a lawyer could explain this better what this really means. To me it means for flashlights and that's it. In my experience with Trademarks, the market where you have rights to the word or mark are pretty thin, especially with a common term.
It would be interesting if in the legal procedings if they can make SWAN admit he spends more on lawyers than engineers, or steel.
Nathan_Bell
10-21-09, 18:40
A pair that deserves one another.
Outlander Systems
10-21-09, 19:27
The best way to solve the issue...
...Send your money to Andrew Bobro.
I own both's gear. Not even any issues with ARMs stuff. LaRue customer service has been outstanding. Throws in goodies. And the important stuff...no issues with any of the LaRue stuff.
Based on the suit alone, I am also tempted to buy something I dont need from LaRue just for support and screw anything for future ARMS purchases.
ohiorifleman
10-21-09, 20:58
Just left my feelings about this crap on ARMS site under their contact us tab- hope the rest of you do the same. Now I'm off to Larue's site to order something.
Isn't 170, 153 bigger than 17?
Sounds silly. Like someone has way too much time on their hands.
IIRC Ford sued Toyota when their first not-tiny pickup came out and was called the "T-100". No idea what the outcome was in court, but it wasn't called the T-100 anymore. One could argue that "100 is 50 less than 150".
Larue used the 17 knowingly and intentionally, and everyone knows it. He did it to make it easy for people to know which Larue product to replace their ARMS product with. Hell, when I bought my replacement I was happy that they made it so easy.
which is why, I suspect, he's trying to collect the broken ARMS mounts; so he can make a case that he was offering an improvement.
Larue used the 17 knowingly and intentionally, and everyone knows it. He did it to make it easy for people to know which Larue product to replace their ARMS product with. Hell, when I bought my replacement I was happy that they made it so easy.
which is why, I suspect, he's trying to collect the broken ARMS mounts; so he can make a case that he was offering an improvement.
If this is indeed correct, I find it brilliant and retarded all at the same time.;)
Having said that, the trademark trail is quite a story in itself.
thopkins22
10-21-09, 21:35
So the real question is...when are we going to start a legal fund for Johnny Cash's estate to sue Dick for "Ring of Fire?"
Rob_s,
I don't know about Mark L's intent, but I still don't think it passes the trademark stinky test. The infringing mark has to be "confusingly similar" or have a "likelihood of confusion." I don't think the courts will pass this one, as I don't see LT-17xx as confusingly similar to #17. It is possible, and the most IP friendly federal IP court is right there in Texas.
I think it's possible that ARMS is playing the IP troll game to get people to settle before court.
Finally, I think ARMS marks are probably challengeable:
1) You can't protect generic terms and #17, SWAN, Silhouette, throw lever, and some of the others seem pretty clear to fit this category.
2) You can't protect "weak" marks unless they have achieved a common secondary meaning. Fr example, the general public or intended market would have to commonly associate ARMS mount with "#17."
If I'm not mistaken, Dell just lost on "Netbook" and ARMS is weaker and more generic.
Noops
thopkins22
10-21-09, 22:17
Fr example, the general public or intended market would have to commonly associate ARMS mount with "#17."
I associate ARMS with
MIM
Heavy
"Soft Mounts"
The hottest stuff around 10 years ago, but that also never got better and was quickly swallowed by the market.
So pretty much anything other than #17...or Ring of Fire.
IIRC, Colt lost the right to trademark the term "M4" after a lawsuit by Bushmaster.
I own a shit ton of Larue stuff and not 1 piece of ARMS gear. After reading this on Lightfighter I ordered a new ACOG mount. I'll also make sure that all my friends that are gun guys know about his antics. This shit will end up hurting him where he's trying to hurt others, the bank account.
variablebinary
10-21-09, 22:44
Im amazed people still buy from some of these companies with some of the BS they pull on good people in the industry.
It shouldnt matter if someone is good, or bad, or part of the cool kid crowd. Everyone has a right to defend their intellectual property.
Obviously some lawsuits are bullshit. Like Colt and M4, and ARMS with #17, but there are other instances where all a company has is the courts to protect their IP from larger organizations with deeper pockets that think they can do whatever they want
Good job Dick Swan of committing internet commerce suicide.
Are you so damn stupid to think that those of us who are VERY satisfied with the products and services of Mark LaRue and company, will not rally to his defense??? Are you so damn stupid to think that any major AR supplier will now use any of your products as features on their guns as a selling point???
You have just managed to forever alienate yourself from those of us that purchase things to go on the top rails of our new uppers, and whatever money you might make on the lawsuit will be more than compensated for by those of us that will now influence others to buy LaRue.
VooDoo6Actual
10-21-09, 23:30
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=39070
I have contacted ARMS as well and expressed my displeasure at the lawsuit.
kaiservontexas
10-22-09, 00:43
Well all those orders hitting LaRue explained why the page dragged on occasion for me, and no I am not complaining. I support LaRue as well.
Iraq Ninja
10-22-09, 01:44
Correct me if I am wrong, but the trademark for 17 relates to 17 used with optic mounts, as stated in the ARMS trademark PDF posted at their website.
You mean, ARMS is still around? :D
Jesus tapdancing.....good plan there Dick, really going to up your sales.
Fail......
Rob_s,
I don't know about Mark L's intent, but I still don't think it passes the trademark stinky test. The infringing mark has to be "confusingly similar" or have a "likelihood of confusion." I don't think the courts will pass this one, as I don't see LT-17xx as confusingly similar to #17. It is possible, and the most IP friendly federal IP court is right there in Texas.
I'm not saying that Dick will win the lawsuit, I'm just saying that Mark knew what he was doing when he named his product, and Dick has had a reputation for this kind of shit for years.
I think Artos' assessment is pretty accurate.
ETA:
Tell me I'm nuts (http://stores.homestead.com/Laruetactical/Detail.bok?no=43).
LaRue Tactical Surefire Mount Upgrade LT-170
Adds LaRue QD capability to your Surefire Weaponlight.
The perfect upgrade for your SureFire WeaponLight. Replaces SureFire M900, M951 and M961 WeaponLight mounts in minutes. The LT-170 provides an adjustable speed lever, that is infinitely adjustable to any MIL-STD 1913 Picatinny rail (adjustability not provided by the A.R.M.S. #17® product).
Comes complete with Mounting hardware, QD adjustment wrench, vial of blue Locktite and Instructions.
Compare our Lever Mount Upgrade to the A.R.M.S. #17® product -- there's no comparison
I just bought a LaRue mount for a CompM4S in support of him and his products :D
I will continue to boycott ARMS for sucking and having a dick-bag for an owner.
IIRC Ford sued Toyota when their first not-tiny pickup came out and was called the "T-100". No idea what the outcome was in court, but it wasn't called the T-100 anymore. One could argue that "100 is 50 less than 150".
Larue used the 17 knowingly and intentionally, and everyone knows it. He did it to make it easy for people to know which Larue product to replace their ARMS product with. Hell, when I bought my replacement I was happy that they made it so easy.
which is why, I suspect, he's trying to collect the broken ARMS mounts; so he can make a case that he was offering an improvement.
Good point. I guess I just don't get wrapped up in marketing all that much. I guess I should pay a bit more attention in this day and age. Up until rather recently, I was a "if I can't put it in my hands first..." kinda buyer.
SingleStacker45
10-22-09, 09:04
I for one am going to order some LaRue products ASAP. That's the best way we can support LaRue. Plus we need an excuse to spend money don't we. :D
Mule
....I'm beginning to wonder if they were not registered simply for the use of future litegation.
well maybe, but I don't think so. registering is a legal process that offers legal protection of your intellectual property. it is done to deny your competition the use or advantage of your product.
like chess, you can use a piece to occupy a space and deny a move, or you can set a trap. I don't think it's the latter.
this said, unless I'm missing something, I don't this suit going anywhere. I DO see that ML was "taunting" him, but that hasn't been against the law (yet)...
ohiorifleman
10-22-09, 12:28
IIRC Ford sued Toyota when their first not-tiny pickup came out and was called the "T-100". No idea what the outcome was in court, but it wasn't called the T-100 anymore. One could argue that "100 is 50 less than 150".
Be my guess that was T-100 vs. F-100 not the 150- otherwise there would have been suits between Ford and Chevy F-150 vs. C-1500 etc etc- nuff off subject though
I guess Winchester should sue Remington for use of the number 700 and the number 7. :rolleyes:
What about Glock? Shouldn't ARMS sue Glock for the use of 17?
IIRC Ford sued Toyota when their first not-tiny pickup came out and was called the "T-100". No idea what the outcome was in court, but it wasn't called the T-100 anymore. One could argue that "100 is 50 less than 150".
Larue used the 17 knowingly and intentionally, and everyone knows it. He did it to make it easy for people to know which Larue product to replace their ARMS product with. Hell, when I bought my replacement I was happy that they made it so easy.
which is why, I suspect, he's trying to collect the broken ARMS mounts; so he can make a case that he was offering an improvement.
actually it was called the T-150, later called the Tundra after lawsuits. The T-100 was alive and well for 4 years before being replaced by the Tundra. So T-150 I could see where they are coming from. now if LaRue marked the mount as the LT #17 they might have a case, but LT-170 should be in the clear.
What about Glock? Shouldn't ARMS sue Glock for the use of 17?
That woudl be fun to see. And sadly it wouldn't shock me if he does try, and would expect a damn good smack down given the size of the legal department that Glock probably employs.
I don't think he has the balls to go after Glock. He is targeting smaller shops that he feels he can bully or steamroll. Glock would crush him.
I don't think he has the balls to go after Glock. He is targeting smaller shops that he feels he can bully or steamroll. Glock would crush him.
Yes, but success can lead to over confidence and cockiness.
registering is a legal process that offers legal protection of your intellectual property. it is done to deny your competition the use or advantage of your product
While I may agree with you on this in part, the fact he is working hard to tm vague words and number that are commonly used within the shooting community does not pass the smell test.
Let's leave Larue out of this for a second...Where does dick need to protect his products using .50cal / 7.62 / 5.56, etc. While I can see him protecting 'throw arms' which are tied to his products, most of the list I see is not what I consider 'intellectual property':rolleyes:
For grins, I did a search for 5.56 on gunbroker....39 pages (+/-1900 auctions) with dozens of mfg's using this term to describe a product or service.
I then did a search for throw arms...1 page excusively to dick's products.
a search of 17 had 43 pages with over 2100 auctions btw.
Yes, but success can lead to over confidence and cockiness.
We can only hope he is that stupid.
This reminds me a lot of the SCO lawsuits. And looks where it got them.
I am surprised he didn't try to trademark "Dick". Imagine all the money you could make, in various contexts :cool:
Gutshot John
10-22-09, 19:13
Having a trade mark is one thing, having a "registered" trade mark is something else entirely.
I don't see how he could register "5.56" among other things with the patent office as IP but an actual lawyer would know better.
My guess is that Mr. Swan has no interest in actually going to court.
EzGoingKev
10-22-09, 21:19
Some more info on how ARMS conducts business -
Link (http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1336573)
CALL TO ARMS, TACTICAL CITY WILL NO LONGER SELL A.R.M.S. INC. PRODUCTS
As a retailer we have very little power. We are at the mercy of our suppliers and the manufacturers of the products we sell. We have been treated very poorly by A.R.M.S. Inc., and the only thing we can do about it is make it public and stop carrying their products.
A.R.M.S. Inc. is extremely aggressive when it comes to dealing with their competition, and they readily take out their disputes with their competition on us, a very low level vendor.
We have had two run-ins with A.R.M.S. Inc. to back up our claim, we’ll start with the most recent.
INCIDENT 1: THE MOST RECENT ABUSE OF POWER
According to A.R.M.S. Inc, whom I spoke with via phone on September 11, 2009 at 11:59 am, they are in a dispute with Magpul over the design of the MAGPUL MBUS FLIP-UP REAR SIGHT. They feel Magpul made the sight too similar to their own.
Fair enough, A.R.M.S. Inc. has a right to challenge Magpul directly on this. We have no problem with that. They can take Magpul to court and see who wins.
However, they are not just taking their fight to Magpul, according the lady I spoke with at A.R.M.S Inc., they are taking it out on individual resellers such as myself for selling the Magpul MBUS Sights.
One way they are doing this is by reporting any listing of Magpul BUIS Sights to EBAY as a copyright violation, not only getting the listings cancelled but jeopardizing the low level retailers account status. We have 8 listings cancelled for this reason and our compliance rating lowered from GOOD to VERY LOW, thus jeopardizing our account and threatening our ability to make a living.
INCIDENT 2: OUR FIRST RUN-IN WITH A.R.M.S.
In an effort to get a leg up on their competition A.R.M.S. has trademarked generic terms used to describe their products. One such term is “Throw Lever”.
Now, we did our research after this incident, and from what we could tell this is a pretty generic engineering term. There is no way to anticipate it being a trademarked term unless you were previously informed of it. So it is only logical for someone to use this term to describe a ring or mount with such a device on it. Anyone who does so will be reported for trademark violation to eBay. No warning, just instantly reported.
Let’s be clear. While we strongly disagree with putting a trademark on generic terms, that is not our complaint. Our complaint is that they did not give us the opportunity to resolve the problem without jeopardizing our eBay account status. A simple email explaining their complaint with our listing would have resulted in our immediate compliance.
CONCLUSION
A.R.M.S. Inc. deliberately tried to get our eBay account status lowered and possibly suspended because we are selling their competition's products. We consider this an unfair strong arm tactic and feel the need to let people know about it. We will NEVER buy or offer for sale another A.R.M.S. Inc. product.
Sincerely,
Joe Arrigoni
Tactical City Gun & Knife Supply
www.tacticalcity.com
The bold section is mine.
Screwing with someone's ebay rating is just douche.
Doing business with people you don't know over the internet is hard enough. Does the process need some douche bag coming in there ****ing things up.
Dick is definitely living up to his name...
Wonder when he'll come after me for etching "6.8 Inside" on my mags?
parishioner
10-22-09, 21:36
^ That is unthinkable. What a sissy little bitch. What, hes not getting business so he is going try to drag everyone else down with him? What a man he is.
whiterabbit05
10-22-09, 21:37
Never buying an ARMS product EVER.
Will buy plenty of LaRue stuff, however.
Robb Jensen
10-22-09, 22:05
What's unfortunate is that the ARMS ordeal will likely harm Barretts reputation as well...
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-22-09, 22:21
What's unfortunate is that the ARMS ordeal will likely harm Barretts reputation as well...
I feel like I spend way too much time online reading about guns, but that is inside baseball to me..:confused:
After all the stuff I've heard about the quality of A.R.M.S. products, this just re-enforces the fact that when I'm in a position to replace my mil-spec Aimpoint mount, that I'm getting a LaRue. I hope this bites A.R.M.S. in the ass big time.
ZOMG what about GLOCK and all those numbers they use? :D
IIRC Ford sued Toyota when their first not-tiny pickup came out and was called the "T-100". No idea what the outcome was in court, but it wasn't called the T-100 anymore. One could argue that "100 is 50 less than 150".
Larue used the 17 knowingly and intentionally, and everyone knows it. He did it to make it easy for people to know which Larue product to replace their ARMS product with. Hell, when I bought my replacement I was happy that they made it so easy.
which is why, I suspect, he's trying to collect the broken ARMS mounts; so he can make a case that he was offering an improvement.
Ford had the Custom-100 and the F150 came from that. But it is just a guess anyways.
This reminds me of people trying to copyright or trademark the language of Programming Languages. Like if you used a For Loop in C++ you had to pay royalties to someone because he copywrote it back for BASIC. Nothing ever came from it that I remember.
Having a trade mark is one thing, having a "registered" trade mark is something else entirely.
I don't see how he could register "5.56" among other things with the patent office as IP but an actual lawyer would know better.
My guess is that Mr. Swan has no interest in actually going to court.
The fact that these are listed at the trademark office really implies they are registered.
Anyone can claim a trademark -- just put TM after it (that little raised TM). However, once your register it with the trademark office it becomes a registered trademark.
Gutshot John
10-23-09, 12:20
The fact that these are listed at the trademark office really implies they are registered.
Anyone can claim a trademark -- just put TM after it (that little raised TM). However, once your register it with the trademark office it becomes a registered trademark.
That's my understanding as well, though I thought one of the criteria for registering is that it wouldn't 'create confusion in the market place.'
Given the ubiquitous nature of a caliber, it would seemingly have to refer to something specific using 5.56 as opposed to any use whatsoever.
Again my interpretation could be flawed since I've never passed the bar. My experience with IP has mostly to do with manufacturers overseas in the GR capacity.
If it is a registered trademark than it's just a bit puzzling.
Iraq Ninja
10-23-09, 12:24
ZOMG what about GLOCK and all those numbers they use? :D
If Glock makes an optical mount with 17 in the name, then yes. If not, then no.
Littlelebowski
10-23-09, 14:20
New ARMS corporate slogan:
Why innovate when you can litigate?
that ebay thing is absolutely rediculous.
My being new to the rifle seen, I am learning alot. I was leaning towards LaRue for my future mounting needs anyway, and now its official.
Looks like and "exit strategy"... and if/when/whether he loses... the resulting backlash could hasten that exit!
Screw ARMS... definitely stick with Larue!
variablebinary
10-23-09, 21:44
While I think ARMS has every right to go after Magpul if they believe they are guilty of patent infringement (Personally, I dont see it), to go after the vendors is very lame
I keep buying Larue stuff, and pay full price rather than use my .mil discount. I figure it's worth it. Never bought Arms stuff, never plan to.
condition 1
10-24-09, 09:25
Just remember where ARMS is located and where LaRue is located. Might help you understand the issue a little better...
;)
Exactly.
condition 1
10-24-09, 09:38
New ARMS corporate slogan:
Why innovate when you can litigate?
Well done, :p Companies/People only sue when they are desparate for money.
Well done, :p Companies/People only sue when they are desparate for money.
I would also put in lazy/cheap.
What Swan could have done instead of paying all that money to a lawyer on a crap shoot he could have invested in re-designing the mount, improving the QC etc to get back market share that Larue, Magpul and Bobro took.
The way I look at it, people who would buy these types of mounts for the most part place their very lives in the hands of the equipment they choose. What good is saving $20 on a mount if your seriously wounded or worse.
Again, I am just making a guess, but when I was building up and equiping my AR's I could care less about cost, I placed reliability as my first priority.
Ok, two cents:
Law suits like this are BS and just put a drag on the industry.
I have a lot of ARMS stuff mostly because the were the industry standard for a long time.
I have seen a lot of ARMS mounts over the years (over 1000 or so would be my guess). I have seen maybe two or three broken and I am not sure how it happened.
Anyone have any pics of broken ARMS mounts?
I know a lot of snipers don't like the ARMS mounts but the DoD still uses them.
Now, systems are being developed with a lot more user input. Several new optics are using LaRue mounts as OEM. Most end users like LaRue products and LaRue's corporate culture. And this perhaps is making Swan very nervous.
I don't think Swan's products are bad, but there is a lot of innovation and competition right now - competition that Swann is not use to and has never had to deal with. This war has been a boon for soldier equipment I will call that a good thing.
I'm surprised it took this long.
There are two sides to this. On the one hand it's sad that so many companies are so litigation-happy. On the other hand, what do you expect when you knowingly and repeatedly trash other companies and products, and even use their numbering systems as the basis for your product names? Especially a company that you know is litigation-happy?
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
why take issue with this post?? Poke a hornets nest...don't be surprised if you get stung.
just sayin...
why take issue with this post?? Poke a hornets nest...don't be surprised if you get stung.
just sayin...
Oh puleese. :rolleyes: I have convinced many in my PD to switch over to LaRue, not over this but the piss poor quality of ARMS products.
Oh puleese. :rolleyes: I have convinced many in my PD to switch over to LaRue, not over this but the piss poor quality of ARMS products.
good grief...3 posts and such a ray of sunshine:rolleyes:
Thanks for your service but you need to lighten up and go back and read the thread again. No one is sticking up for arms....just saying that larue should have suspected this.;)
maybe the left coast is just making you grouchy:confused:
variablebinary
10-24-09, 19:41
Oh puleese. :rolleyes: I have convinced many in my PD to switch over to LaRue, not over this but the piss poor quality of ARMS products.
LOL
Play nice you crazy kids
Like I said, every company has a right to protect their IP, but to chase someone over the numbers 1 and 7 is just bizarre.
Well I don't know about anyone else, but I just sent LaRue a message. I'd like to buy a LaRue mount for my Leupold CQ/T and send him the ARMS mount to throw in his big bucket of ARMS garbage. I refuse to have a mount on my gun from such an anti-American, anti-competition douchebag. (of course I mean this in the nicest possible way)
SingleStacker45
10-25-09, 17:02
I just pulled the trigger on a meopta and a SPR-E mount.
Thanks LaRue.
Mule
Uh, with respect to the members of this board...Has anyone actually read the complaint? Or are people simply going off of what an interested party has to say about the matter....
Sure, ARMs stuff might suck, but I would be curious as to whether there's merit to their claims.
Uh, with respect to the members of this board...Has anyone actually read the complaint? Or are people simply going off of what an interested party has to say about the matter....
Sure, ARMs stuff might suck, but I would be curious as to whether there's merit to their claims.
I am willing to bet most of us have. And the case is without merit.
variablebinary
10-25-09, 19:01
Uh, with respect to the members of this board...Has anyone actually read the complaint? Or are people simply going off of what an interested party has to say about the matter....
Sure, ARMs stuff might suck, but I would be curious as to whether there's merit to their claims.
I think ARMS could make a case against the MBUS.
However, the 17 deal is ridiculous
Uh, with respect to the members of this board...Has anyone actually read the complaint? Or are people simply going off of what an interested party has to say about the matter....
Sure, ARMs stuff might suck, but I would be curious as to whether there's merit to their claims.
I'm always open to knowing the truth...have anything to share that will shed arms in a better light?? The link about going after the retailer kinda pushed my opinion over the edge but have zero problems saying I jumped to conclusions.
This is actually quite interesting from the sidelines...I first heard about larue from Brad Thor's books and also have done some hunting in Leander, so I'm kinda biased.
If any new facts come out, I would like to hear them.
It seems to me that the MBUS case is just as flimsy. They both use a spring and have round objective. That is pretty much where the similarities end.
I have copies of the complaint and answer. They exceed the maximum allowable upload size. Any Mod's want copies to post?
UrbanRunner
10-25-09, 21:17
ARMS will not be getting any business from me! Screw these frivolous lawsuits!
patriot_man
10-25-09, 22:22
The only ARMS mount that has surprisingly lasted me is on my eotech 553
variablebinary
10-25-09, 22:59
It seems to me that the MBUS case is just as flimsy. They both use a spring and have round objective. That is pretty much where the similarities end.
You might want to read the patent before saying that.
US Patent 5533292 - Self-aligning flip-up sight
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=wNYjAAAAEBAJ&dq=5533292
If you go by that then any BUIS with a spring (including Matech) would be in violation.
variablebinary
10-25-09, 23:47
If you go by that then any BUIS with a spring (including Matech) would be in violation.
Maybe, but it's different enough to get off on a 10% deal IMHO. The MBUS, not so much, as they are both retained by a clamp, and spring up when the clamp is released. ARMS did it first and patented it, end of story
I dont give a rats ass who it is, EVERYONE has the right to defend their IP from theft, cloning, skimming, individuals trying to scam with technicalities, or whatever
ARMS might not be part of the AR15 cool kid club anymore, but they still have protections under the law.
Sure the #17 deal is frivolous, no doubt, but I personally can see why they would argue the MBUS is guilty of patent infringement. I own a set of MBUS and plenty of other Magpul gear. I like Magpul, they make good kit, but ARMS is still entitled to their day in court to protect their IP
I dont see anyone coming down on Magpul for suing ARMS over their Swan sling.
Uh, with respect to the members of this board...Has anyone actually read the complaint?
More importantly, IMHO, is how many of those throwing out words like "frivolous" are actually patent attorneys?
EzGoingKev
10-26-09, 09:38
I dont see anyone coming down on Magpul for suing ARMS over their Swan sling.
As far as I know, Magpul's suit is a countersuit ARMS in response to ARMS' suit against them.
I thought that stuff only had to be 20% different before another company can use it, be it a patent or a copyright?
Oh and screw ARMS!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.