Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« San Fran struggles to cope with gun ban | Main | Dealing with IEDs »

Colt v. Bushmaster lawsuit

Posted by David Hardy · 11 December 2005 12:16 PM

A Federal Magistrate has issued a recommended decision (it has to be reviewed by the District Judge) in a lawsuit between Colt and Bushmaster (pdf file).

A quick read of the 70 page opinion indicates Colt is suing over trademark and related doctrines, regarding Bushmaster's use of terms such as "M4", "AR-15," etc. The magistrate recommends ruling in favor of Bushmaster on most of the suit, on grounds that the terms have become common usage (and M4 is a term assigned by the government). Colt also asserts a sort of "look and feel" argument regarding design of the M-16 and AR-15. The magistrate rejects that for a number of reasons (the look and feel must not be related to function, but to appearance, etc.). The Magistrate does allow one claim to go forward, related to false advertising (Bushmaster's statements that it hold government contracts and makes to mil-spec).

There's also an interesting legal history of past disputes over the M-16 and M4, how the M4 contract came to be, etc. (Although the discussion may be the official and somewhat sanitized one: I've heard it said that Colt was outbid on the M-16 contract, and for political reasons was then awarded one, sole source (no competitive bidding) for the M4, which is essentially an M-16.

[Thanks to Mark Gruver for the tip]

· shooting

2 Comments | Leave a comment

annonymous coward | December 11, 2005 3:52 PM | Reply

It should show up in the case records.

My understanding is that the Feds shared Colt's proprietary information, obtained under non-disclosure terms, with competitors - H&K - and got caught. Hence the Govt. was unable to spec from anybody but Colt and so bought Colt. Easy to find this version all over the web.

Mark | December 12, 2005 8:57 AM | Reply

Bushmaster is reporting on their website that the court has upheld the opinion of the magistrate.

Leave a comment