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

[youngunz4life]

http://www.maxarmory.com/vicosite/in...ter%2B08-11-12

I am on the email list of this company after buying a small item a few years ago. Has anybody else heard of this lawsuit and/or does anyone have anything to add or say about the owner of maxsell? I sortof feel bad for the guy; he seems old school and trying to gain closure. Some wisemen(or women) on TFL probably know lawyers can drown people with paperwork sometimes. I would like to know if the lawsuit is frivilous or legit? I guess each side has good points...

this link is just their website....see the main story from the link at the top of the thread:


http://www.maxarmory.com/?utm_source...ter%2B08-11-12

[sigcurious]

The aesthetic similarities between his blank gun and an actual glock are pretty numerous. This seems somewhat similar to the Apple vs Samsung thing, apple claims samsung is infringing on its design patents, but the difficulty lies in the fact that in tablets, there are always going to be inherent similarities in design.

Pistols too, all have similar features. Unfortunately I think it would be hard for him to argue, that even though pistols inherently look similar that his design is not almost exactly like a glock.

It is sad though that a large company feels the need to sue and use aggressive legal tactics against a smaller company for something that likely has no demonstrable effect on their business.

[wayneinFL]

It looks an awful lot like a Glock. His claims that it's not a gun are true. But know replicas of other guns sold as airguns by companies like Crosman and Daisy are usually licensed.

I wonder how this guy is getting sued, and Glock isn't pursuing CCF Raceframes? They nailed S&W for the Sigma upper, why not for a CCF lower?

[Aguila Blanca]

On one hand: Glock does not make or sell blank-firing starter pistols, and Maxsell does not sell real firearms. There is NO confusion in the marketplace with people buying a Maxsell blank gun and thinking they're getting a Glock. I think Glock is going to be thrashed in court.

On the other hand, I don't have a lot of good things to say about Maxsell. Their ads border on fraudulent. If you read some of them closely (I have), they are worded in such a way that they create the impression that you can fire actual projectiles from these guns. Plus Maxsell is one of the companies promoting those idiotic "Concealed Weapons Permit" badges. That alone should tell you the company isn't exactly squeaky clean.

Then look at some of the videos in the links at the left side of their home page. They actually tell people that carrying a BLANK firearm is a viable self-defense tactic. Maybe in some alternate space-time continuum, but not in MY universe it ain't.

I guess I'll just watch this one from the sidelines. I don't like Glock, and I don't like Maxsell so I don't have a dog in the fight.

BTW, it also sounds as though he has been trying to deal with this HIMSELF up to now. Small wonder he's not getting anywhere. Even among attorneys it's axiomatic that "He who represents himself has a fool for a client." For a 79-year old small businessman to even consider going up against an international company like Glock is beyond stupid. He should have paid a lawyer a long time ago, and the case would either have gone away or been settled by now.

[youngunz4life]

yeah they have some questionable products that I wouldn't buy, but I must say the company, corporation, and/or website is legit (at least as far as I know). He is a seventy something year old man trying to defend the company and employees that was his bread and butter. His products sell...supply and demand

[Tom Servo]

From what I can gather, the guy stepped on some trademark toes. A simple cease-and-desist would have been a diplomatic (and likely, effective) move on Glock's part.

As to what led to them being so persistent, I don't know. There could be other factors, and we have only one side of the story.

It really doesn't help to run a website like that during litigation, though.

[Nickel Plated]

Uumm... are we looking at the same gun?
http://www.maxarmory.com/products/Sa...un-2296-9.html

This thing right?

That has zero in common with a Glock. Metal frame, external safeties, external hammer. What, noone is allowed to make a gun with a square slide anymore? It's a completely frivolous lawsuit. Glock has never been friendly with replica manufacturers.

Honestly that pistol has more in common with maybe a Kahr than a Glock.

[TXAZ]

Right or wrong his company is toast, he just doesn't realize it.

[dogtown tom]

Nickel Plated Uumm... are we looking at the same gun?
http://www.maxarmory.com/products/Sa...un-2296-9.html

This thing right?

Nope.......its this one that bears a striking resemblence to a Glock:
(scroll to bottom of page)http://www.maxarmory.com/vicosite/documents.html

[sigcurious]

Putting my pretend glock lawyer hat on: Mr Confino if you feel your product does not infringe on my client's design, why did you feel the need to distinguish it from my client's design, by inscribing your frame with "Not a Glock"?

Not really sure how he would answer that without admitting he or someone in his organization felt it looked enough like a glock to be mistaken for one.

[FrankenMauser]

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:

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).

[1911Alaska]

Ok total noob question here I am sure, but how come this guy can't make and sell this gun that is similar to the Glock, but so many firearm companies can/do make and sell 1911s? The 1911 was originally made by Colt I believe but so many other companies make it and sell it as their own.

[Nickel Plated]

Ok, now I see. Yea that's a total Glock copy. While I still disagree with Glock's actions, this guy should have known that Glock is very protective of their patent and will sue the hell out of anyone that makes anything even close to a Glock. They've been suing Airsoft manufacturer's left and right over it. Though since most of them are in China or Taiwan where copyright and patent laws practically don't exist, there's not much they can do.

Ok total noob question here I am sure, but how come this guy can't make and sell this gun that is similar to the Glock, but so many firearm companies can/do make and sell 1911s? The 1911 was originally made by Colt I believe but so many other companies make it and sell it as their own.

Because it's been out for over 100 years, that patent's kinda expired a long time ago. Also I read something about the fact that since it was a standard issue government weapon, that kind of makes it a public domain thing and is pretty much open for anyone to use. Same way people copy AR-15s, Thompsons, Garands, M-14s, M1 Carbines. As long as you use your own or the military designationa and don't put the original manufacturer's logo on it, you can copy it all you want.

[dajowi]

The S/N (10010304) on the Zoraki 925 9mnmPAK pistol submitted to ATF really cracked me up.

Yes the pistol looks like a Glock among others - who cares. It's not even a firearm. I can see how Glock attorneys can view the "front firing exclusive" feature on this "weapon" as an assault upon Glock's manhood.

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.

Maybe what surprised me the most is that he still owned a Glock pistol.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Nickle Plated

Because it's been out for over 100 years, that patent's kinda expired a long time ago. Also I read something about the fact that since it was a standard issue government weapon, that kind of makes it a public domain thing and is pretty much open for anyone to use. Same way people copy AR-15s, Thompsons, Garands, M-14s, M1 Carbines. As long as you use your own or the military designationa and don't put the original manufacturer's logo on it, you can copy it all you want.

First part correct, second part no. Government use or not, what matters is the patent and/or trademarks.

Patents last 20 years (generally). After that, the design is unprotected. The reason those designs can be copied with impunity is because their protection has expired.

Trademarks and "trade dress" are different, in that it's not an issue of a patent, neccesarily, but an issue of trying to make consumers associate your product with the other product by means of appearance or packaging that matches the competitive product and for which the competitive product is distinctly known.

Personally, I'm not so sure Glock can win, if Maxsell gets a competent lawyer. The standards that the court will use are essentially:

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/...ress.html#When

1. The strength or distinctiveness of the trade dress
   
2. The intent to copy and "cash in" on plaintiff's reputation and goodwill
   
3. The similarity in products
   
4. Evidence of actual confusion
   
5. Degree of care exercised by buyers
   
6. The area, manner and degree of concurrent use.

I would say that 3, 4, 5 and 6 all have some manner of ambiguity and #2 is no slam dunk.

[Don H]

Originally Posted by 1911Alaska

Ok total noob question here I am sure, but how come this guy can't make and sell this gun that is similar to the Glock, but so many firearm companies can/do make and sell 1911s? The 1911 was originally made by Colt I believe but so many other companies make it and sell it as their own.

The Colt 1911 patents had expired by 1928 or so. This is what allowed Dieudonné Saive to integrate a number of 1911 features in the Browning High Power (Browning's original design for the High Power was far different than the design of the pistol as we know it). If a design no longer has patent protection it is pretty much fair game for other manufacturers to copy or to use features in their own products.

[ClydeFrog]

The Maxsell line has been around for several years. Mostly selling cheap metal badges, phoney SWAT & LE type mall ninja t-shirts & caps and fake(blank) handguns.
About 3 years ago, this central FL/space coast area business was going to "close" & go under.

I didn't understand that.
Maybe a big legal case with Glock will close them down.

Clyde

[MLeake]

On the one hand, I am usually not a fan of big corporations going overboard on product protection. (Example: Lego notified my BIL to stop converting Lego toys into zombies for a stop-motion animation zombie movie he was making; no legal basis for their argument, but my BIL could not afford to fight and win that case.)

However, in this case, Glock may well be right. Also, I may be wrong, but I suspect a failure to act by Glock on this case could create precedent that would complicate future copyright and trade dress cases for Glock.

[Edward429451]

This guy was asking for trouble. "Not A Glock" lol!!

If dragons like ketchup, and you bathe in Ketchup, then hold up a sign that says this is not ketchup, thinking it will make the dragon look the other way...then you shouldn't be as frantic as this guy is that the dragon took notice.

Don't tease the dragons if you don't want to fight the dragon.

[rebs]

Perhaps Glock doesn't want this guy to set a president thereby allowing other to infringe on their designs.

[Frank Ettin]

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.

[dogtown tom]

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.

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.

[jmr40]

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.

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.

[dogtown tom]

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.

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.

[hogdogs]

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