Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
A few points:[*] Much of the court's reasoning rested on the argument that the suppressor pictured in the advertisement couldn't be readily identified as a Surefire product.
No. Page 6, line 16.

"The Court Finds that AAC's alleged statements were not literally false on their face [with or without knowing if it was SureFire] or by necessary implication [if it was known as SureFire]."

Page 7, line 15.

"However, SureFire fails to provide evidence that the advertisement's implicit messages are false."

This is independent of who the "competitive" suppressor is.