General

[Fritz1970]

ALL BELOW COMMENTS ARE MY OPINION ONLY AND BASED ON MY REVIEW OF ONLY ONE COMPLAINT. THESE COMMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO ANY HK CLAIMS AGAINST ANY FIREARM MANUFACTURER.

Also, I apologize for the huge number of commas in this post. My elementary school english teacher is prolly rolling over in his whiskey bottle.

I've only briefly read one of the complaints, but assuming that they all of the HK the complaints against the various paintball companies are similar, this is NOT a patent issue.

This is a TRADEMARK/TRADE DRESS & UNFAIR COMPETITION issue.

In essence, a patent guards your rights to use a particular method or invention.

In essence, a trademark guards your rights to use a particular brand (name, logo, trade dress (i.e. particular 'look' of your product or packaging), etc.).

"Trade Dress" does not HAVE to be trademarked. It is protected by the federal Lanham Act, and prohibits, generally, knockoffs, forgeries and copycat items/products.

Unfair competition is, in most states, basically a claim for deceptive or fraudulent practices in competition.

NONE of the paintball products likely violate a firearm patent, as they aren't firearms. In any event, while the complaints mention HK's patents, they don't appear to make a claim for patent violation. Instead, they limit their claims to trademark/unfair competition style claims.

Essentially, HK is saying that (a) the paintball defendants are using HK's distinctive brand names (MP5, etc.) and the distinctive 'look' of their products, which HK claims to have registered with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (the names appear to have been patented, but my quick investigation did not locate any trade dress registrations - I may have missed them), without license or permission; and (b) the paintball companies are making products using HK's trade dress and/or passing their products off in a manner that leads consumers to believe that the products have been either made, licensed or authorized by HK.

The first part of the claim - that the paintball companies are using HK's trademarks (the MP5 or USP names, for example) - may have some serious weight. The names are trademarked with the USPTO (for us in paintball, specifically!) and if they are used by the paintball defendants without license, then HK may HAVE to sue in order to protect its rights in the future. Failing to enforce your trademark or trade secret rights can lead to future courts essentially declaring that you have 'abandoned' them - which is why there are a lot of trademark/trade secret claims made.

I did note something of interest in HK's "MP5" trademark application filed with the USPTO. The application states that it has trademarked the "MP5" name for use with firearms, cutlery, clothing, etc., as well as paintball guns. HK has SPECIFICALLY trademarked the MP5 name for paintball guns. However, a requirement for a trademark is that you ARE USING IT IN COMMERCE - while HK is using the MP5 name with regards to firearms and clothing, I am not sure that it has ever used the name in the paintball industry. Whether that distinction will help the paintball defendants, I don't know.

I do know, however, that there appears to have been a problem with HK's trademark registrations in 2008 (for MP5, USP, MP7, etc.), and the application process has been suspended for them. The problem appears to be technical, but I haven't had the time to track down the issue other than it appears due to a misspelling and the fact that HK has related corporate entities operating in the US who have or wish to register the name.

The application also appears to have only been made in August of 2008, and still pending as of April 2009. This may explain the timing of the lawsuit.

The 2nd part of the claim - that the paintball companies are being 'deceptive' in selling look-alike products because consumers might believe that they are HK products - seems far-fetched to me. I do not believe ANY paintball consumer would likely believe that BT's products (for example) are actually HK products.

Whether the paintball defendants' use of HK look-alike design (if, indeed, they have used any HK styling or design) violates the Lanham Act or other laws would really require a close look at the designs of all products, and I haven't had time to do that.

I will note that Coharie Arms (a firearm manufacturer defendant) seems to have very good counsel and is on the attack. I like what I saw of their pleadings; HK will have a tough time with them.

This could have been resolved by negotation between the parties. I'm curious as to why that failed or was not tried. Anyone have any insight?

Fritz

[Harbinger[TG]]

Originally Posted by IrishRedneck86

Personelly I think all these lawsuits are BS and pointless cause their sueing over a paintball company making a paintball gun that looks like one of their designs so what that paintball gun is never gonna take away from their total sales not in a million years besides the paintball gun never functions as a real gun so even you some one tried to use the sights like a real gun they would sorely be dissappointed for any real kind of distant shot.

now if these were lawsuits againts another real gun manufacturer then i could see it being legit but the fact that HK is sueing paintball and airsoft companies over cheaply made plastic parts that look like their guns is pointless. all this is, is some suited monkeys dumba** idea to make a few bucks and make themself look good to their company making it seem like their looking out for the company.

also on the dumb rant here about kids respecting guns and whatever that is also pointless it wil never be a companies fault for their product causing harm to someone if used improperly or by persons that are not knowledegable about the product and any one who thinks otherwise or thinks that the companies should step up instead of the parents is smoking something very illegal and good and I might want to try some cause they are totally crazy and just wanting to shift blame everywhere else but where it needs to be

Gun companies get sued AND lose all the time.

[LK-13]

so this is because others have copied the H&K shapes, looks, graphics and similar naming strategies?
or
is it because some accessories are direct 1:1 scale copies that could very well be used on real steel firearms; scope mounts & fore gripes, as examples.

the second option I see as having more relevance, so on ebay you can't sell your used H&K stuff? or you can't sell stuff that looks like H&K product?
I can't see how they can block you from selling your legitimate used H&K product; that would seem to be your right as the end purchaser.

i wonder if it is too late for many of these companies to negotiate a licensing deal.

at least unlike smart parts H&K is not back filling patents claiming to have invented things that they have no clear rights to.

it's too bad H&K can't view this as a form of free advertising.

i wonder why the auto makers and aircraft companies have never gone after the companies that produce plastic model kits.
if you can sue because something "looks" like your product models and hot wheels, Matchbox cars and so on , should all be in hot water.

[tangus999]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOOT3R USA
As much as I agree there is always the parents that won't and sometimes the companies NEED to step up to the plate.
Trying to shift responsibility from parents to corporations won't solve a damn thing, that's all wrong
__________________"

there is ONE person responsible for what they do..... THE PERSON THEMSELVES. not your teachers, not your parents, not you neighbors.... YOU.
legallly parents are responsible for the "child" till age 18. but it's not one else "fault" but your own....... shooter get out of here with your liberal lawyer "it ain't my fault" bs.
this is causing the downfall of the american society.

[SHOOT3R USA]

Originally Posted by Silverback

I have two words for you... BULL ****!!!!!


anymore than any other paintball gun will make someone disrespect a "real" gun, you're sounding like these liberal ASSHATS in DC trying to grab every gun they see... get a clue.

Belive me, I'm not a liberal *** hat. I have a filler gun cabinet 3 feet away from my bed with 12.ga and high powered rifles.

[Deuce]

Why is everyone attacking Shooter? You guys need to chill a bit. What he mentioned is a valid point. Parents are responsible for their kids and their actions while they are under their care. Morally and legally they are responsible and can be taken to court for the actions of their child.

That is why there are laws in most (im not sure of all states) states requiring adult supervision of minors with markers. As far as the whole argument about it not making a difference if it's a STBB or a milsim, I think it stands to reason that if a person was using a Spyder inappropriately a police officer will be able to recognize that it isn't a firearm except maybe in the darkest of situations.

Flip that role and put a TM7, X7, etc in the persons hand and I could most certainly see said officer drawing down and shooting the person if he comes around with it.

This is the real world guys.

I personally like a lot of the milsim stuff, but they have the right to protect their products and IP and would be foolish not to do so. Just as the companies that are copying their stuff were foolish to do so. In the back of their minds they knew this would happen. Most were probably just hoping they could make a good quick buck and move on before something came of it.

[wolf13]

I look at it as self protection for HK. kid with airsoft mp5 has it on the street in NYC, kid gets shot by cop because kid is an idiot and points it at cop. Kid dies, parents sues airsoft company and hk in NYC. ultra liberal anti gun nut jury with "guns are evil" tattoo's on thier forheads hears al about the emotional trauma of loosing little timmy and how he just wanted to be a navy seal some other BS. HK, who just had the misfortune of having their product copied ends up owing 10 million to a retards family and yet anothe rnew piece of of "ban evil looking guns" gets introduced.

[Fritz1970]

I've been called a gun-loving liberal lawyer, and the label has some merit. However, I don't think the label fits terribly well, and I don't think throwing 'liberal' and 'conservative' labels around really helps the dialogue in any event. Not only have the labels both been completely abused and misdefined on all sides by the talking heads and demagogues (OT: who here wants to see an Al Franken-Rush Limbaugh mud wrestling match?), but the labels have been promoted as ways to draw battle lines - creating a 'you vs. me' battle instead of an 'issue vs. issue' battle. It destroys our ability to treat our neighbors and fellow citizens with respect, and leads to unnecessary divisions that are promoted only to support a bloated and ineffective political power structure.

I think THAT is a very large part of our current problems in America these days.

I also think that this is very off-topic, and ought to be in another forum. I'd be happy to discuss the issues with anyone, but not in this thread. I'll STFU on this issue here.

Fritz

Originally Posted by tangus999

"Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOOT3R USA
As much as I agree there is always the parents that won't and sometimes the companies NEED to step up to the plate.
Trying to shift responsibility from parents to corporations won't solve a damn thing, that's all wrong
__________________"

there is ONE person responsible for what they do..... THE PERSON THEMSELVES. not your teachers, not your parents, not you neighbors.... YOU.
legallly parents are responsible for the "child" till age 18. but it's not one else "fault" but your own....... shooter get out of here with your liberal lawyer "it ain't my fault" bs.
this is causing the downfall of the american society.

[EDDAKA]

Originally Posted by Dirty Deuce

You guys Flip that role and put a TM7, X7, etc in the persons hand and I could most certainly see said officer drawing down and shooting the person if he comes around with it.

If said kid was taught proper safety why would said kid be using his marker in dark situations outside a paintball field?

[SHAG]

Hi,

This is probably H&K trying to protect the name of the their products in a growing market such as paintball milisim/ scenario ball. Personally I am surprised the companies (Spec Ops, Tippmann, BT, etc.) have been able to get away with the use of names and "designs" for so long. I honestly thought these companies had already secured the use of look and name rights from H&K.

Now mind you it is possible that H&K didn't mind at first but when they saw the replicating of the designs take off in paintball, someone said we better get in there and get something out of this. Reality is these companies took the time to secure trademark rights and such, none of these suits would exist. The other side is maybe H&K wants to get into the Mil sim market.