The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old August 11, 2012, 09:06 PM   #1
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
maxsell being sued by glock and 79yr old owner is scared

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
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old August 11, 2012, 09:41 PM   #2
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
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.
sigcurious is offline  
Old August 11, 2012, 10:18 PM   #3
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
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?
wayneinFL is offline  
Old August 11, 2012, 10:28 PM   #4
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,708
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.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 11, 2012, 10:37 PM   #5
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
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
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old August 11, 2012, 10:51 PM   #6
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,655
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 11, 2012, 11:26 PM   #7
Nickel Plated
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 549
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.
Nickel Plated is offline  
Old August 11, 2012, 11:34 PM   #8
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Posts: 1,510
He has no chance

Right or wrong his company is toast, he just doesn't realize it.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 12:22 AM   #9
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 1,559
Quote:
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
__________________
Need a FFL in north Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me.

$20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)
dogtown tom is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 12:48 AM   #10
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
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.
sigcurious is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 01:16 AM   #11
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 7,006
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).
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 06:53 AM   #12
1911Alaska
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2012
Posts: 139
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.
1911Alaska is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 07:23 AM   #13
Nickel Plated
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 549
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.
Quote:
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.
Nickel Plated is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 09:26 AM   #14
dajowi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 982
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.
dajowi is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 09:47 AM   #15
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
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.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 09:49 AM   #16
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
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.
Don H is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 10:18 AM   #17
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Maxsell, Space Coast-Florida...

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
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 11:08 AM   #18
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 11:58 AM   #19
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
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.
Edward429451 is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 12:54 PM   #20
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,295
Perhaps Glock doesn't want this guy to set a president thereby allowing other to infringe on their designs.
rebs is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 12:56 PM   #21
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,923
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.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 01:38 PM   #22
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 1,559
Quote:
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.
__________________
Need a FFL in north Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me.

$20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)
dogtown tom is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 02:30 PM   #23
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,180
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.

Quote:
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.
jmr40 is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 02:33 PM   #24
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 1,559
Quote:
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.
__________________
Need a FFL in north Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me.

$20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)
dogtown tom is offline  
Old August 12, 2012, 02:34 PM   #25
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
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
hogdogs is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
firearm rights , glock , handgun , lawsuit , maxsell

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12696 seconds with 7 queries