I don't think the actual market will matter at all here.
I think it will all come down to one question: Does it look like a Glock?
The answer is obviously a resounding "Yes."
Moving on to the Lanham Act:
Quote:
Section 43(a)
"Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive [...] as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is likely to be damaged by such an act."
|
Sorry, Maxsell, do your homework next time (and don't infringe on other people's designs). It's called a design patent or trade dress.
"
The configuration of shapes, designs, colors, or materials that make up the trade dress in question must not serve a utility or function outside of creating recognition in the consumer’s mind."
Link to precedent.
Since the actual design of the M917 has no functional purpose, other than mimicking a Glock, Maxsell doesn't have a leg to stand on.
-Just my opinion. I am not a lawyer, and I don't have any preference in this case. But... Maxsell does seem to copy quite a few designs (apparently, without licensing/permission).