Smith & Wesson hates you more than HK

File: 12390911_556977434459601_3175438751745616653_n.jpg (85KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 540x960px

More proof that Smithfags are about to get BTFO by their own company.

>>28285766

S&W will lose this fight if they push it because there is precedence for modifications.

But IMO, they're salty about making an inferior product that needs to be fixed by third-party companies, and I'd personally never buy a product like that, but many people do.

File: kek1.jpg (47KB, 539x960px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 539x960px

Here is a better part of the document.

Check out how demanding they are.

>>28285766
how does a legal battle between 2 companies over intellectual property and trademark infringment equate to the end user being told "what you can and canvt do with with your personal property"?

oh wait...it doesn't, and you're a fucking idiot

stop trying to stir shit within the gun community, communist troll

File: kek2.jpg (70KB, 539x960px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 539x960px

>>28285797
2/4

File: kek3.jpg (74KB, 539x960px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 539x960px

3/4

>>28285799
I'm not the one stirring shit, S&W is.

Lrn2read

>>28285799

>intellectual property

These are people selling after market parts for OR custom work on guns.

IF they are selling a custom gun they bought and modded for cost+ S&W can go pound sand if they dont like it.

File: kek5.jpg (45KB, 539x960px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 539x960px

>>28285812
4/4
And here's the bombshell.

>>28285766
>>28285777
>>28285797

Are you retarded?

people that dont understand how the law works should be prohibited from discussing it outside of classrooms

File: IMG_2138.jpg (399KB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1632x1224px

>>28285766
Not my fault they didnt make their knives tactically markerly.

File: f20c23967ef0886106c9bd326ab667960ec40ad69a03355ed3b154506c175585.jpg (41KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x300px

>>28285816

yes, using someone elses trademark to sell your shot without the others permission is illegal.

grow the fuck up

>>28285820
So, never buying a s&w. Ever.
Jerry mikhulic, or what ever his last name is, should be ashamed of himself for promoting such a shit assed company.

>>28285766
So basically what they want is for boutique gun companies to stop buying m&p's, taking a dremel and soldering iron to them and calling them s&w brand^tm M&p's. Sounds like they hate those guys for "riding their coat-tails".

>>28285828
>>28285843
>sells branded items worldwide
>gets pissed when aftermarket makes it better
>claims trademark violations

S&Wfags detected.

>>28285843
Thats like saying buying new rims for your truck is copyright infringement. "You need to turn over that property sir, you have till jan 5 to reply, or i will use the fullest extent of the law to persecute you. By the way, dont try to alter the vehicle by replacing the aftermarket shit with the stock shit again, thats distruction of evidence."

>>28285843

>muh rollmark gives us rights after it leaves our custody
>it's your property to do with as you want, except it's not

They are absolutely right to say they will not honor any warranties of guns with that work.

Saying they straight cant do it, charge others for the work, or that they have to RETURN ALL PROPERTY THEYVE PURCHASED is overstepping bounds.

Where's it stop? Are they going after people who cerakote slides next?

>>28285781
which is sad, because the shield 9mm is a great gun, ergonomically. However the trigger is such shit its pretty sad.

With an Apex trigger, shields get turned into one of the best CC guns.

What am I missing here? Does s&w not sell the initial product ? Do they not make money off of this regardless of who fucka with the product after it leaves their factory?

Are they just butt hurt that other companies are modifying and then selling s&w's " finished " product ? Is the goal in firearms sale (or any product really ) not to profit ?

>S&W sells product at profit
> company who purchased product modifies product and sells at premium
>customer enjoys customized product
> cycle begins again due to profit

So you can only sell a ford second new ford if you haven't done anything to it? What about "upgraded packages" ? New rifles with aftermarket scope Mount? Etc.

Time to sell my M&P 9C.

I really liked it, but I'm thinking about getting the FNS-9C.

>>28285843

Nobody tell Colt about this.

They'll attempt to sue Magpul back into profitability.

File: 0VmTUUe.jpg (154KB, 750x562px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 750x562px

>>28285873
THIS

File: IMG_2139.jpg (624KB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 1632x1224px

>>28285829
Introducing the new S&W food flavor enhancer dispenser.

*Habanero ranch not to be used to cause burns to knife wounds*

>>28285872
No you fucking idiot, it's like buying a thousands f-150, putting rims on them, then going to an auto show and advertising it as the "last ford you'll ever need/the only good f-150" and actively competing with ford whilst using their copyrights/trademarks to help market your truck

>>28285898
Which is precisely what Henessey performance does.

Wow you are a moron.

>>28285898
> Implying that doesn't already happen with Hennessy and Saleen
Get AIDS, nerd.

File: 1442128899207.jpg (95KB, 500x765px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 500x765px

SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?
Just stop buying s&w? Write an angry letter? What?

>>28285898
No, it's like Fiat suing Abarth for making certain, costly improvements to their cars that have no place on the standard models.Disregarding the fact that Fiat owns Abarth these days.

I am a computer scientist and i unserstand copyright laws. Buying a product, modifying it, and selling it as a different product is illegal. If they sell it named as a s&w modified its fine but naming it something else and removing a logo and putting your own on it is completely illegal. There is nothing illegal about doing this to your own gun but you cant do this and sell them as a business. Its not your IP. S&w guns are proprietary, restriction apply. Build your own guns if you want to build and sell guns.

>>28285820

Ha, they don't want to be embarrassed at SHOT Show.

>>28285860
>gets pissed when aftermarket makes it better.


actually, its more like "gets pissed when retards send guns in demanding warranty work on a product that has lost warranty coverage because another manufacturer emblazoned the S&W or M&P logo all over parts that S&W had no hand in manufacturing, quality control of, or legal liability to correct problems with".

I know its hard for an occupy fag such as yourself to understand people own ideas and property that they come up with, but try reading more

>>28285918

They are selling it as an M&P modified.

And S&w's issue seems to be that their rollmark is being misused (that is, remaining in place.)

Smith and Wesson a shit.

File: image.jpg (19KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x400px

>>28285928
Well, maybe if the product worked right before they sold it, people wouldn't need to modify it.

You're a fucking moron, and you got BTFO'd like half a dozen times already.

Fuck off.

Daily reminder that S&W almost ruined their company by partnering up with the Clinton's to install locks on their firearms.

>mfw they're pissing away all of the goodwill they have rebuilt over the past 15 years after nearly getting BTFO by the gun industry.

>>28285872
no, its more like pretending you're a Ford dealership and reffering people to another, actual Ford dealership for warranty work when the gigantic rims you installed incompletely cause the brakes to fail prematurely


this is about how Apex represented parts and warranty work

>>28285820
I'd send the, an email telling them to go fuck themselves and then just rename the product and remove all the smith&wesson markings.

>>28285852


Its not like they ran this past him or anything bro, don't blame him he just gets paid to shoot and wear their colors.

You don't hate NASCAR drivers for their sponsors or tiger woods cause you hate Nike or somethinf

>>28285928

Then dont honor the warranty.

Still not seeing the part where this is anyone's problem.

File: 1443536626820.jpg (48KB, 960x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 960x480px

>>28285918

You have to buy a S&W first before it gets made better, hence the proprietary nature of the gun hasnt physically changed, only been altered to the user's preference.

>>28285928
How this has anything to with warranty work is beyond me.

Anyone willing to spend the dosh to get a full custom M&P isn't fucking stupid enough to send it to S&W for repairs.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and I possess the ability to do what I please with ANYTHING that is built, from 100 years ago to today.

Fuck off Smithshill.

>whine about S&W tells companies to stop modifying their products according to the S&W name and stating the trigger is shit
>surprised when S&W slaps them with a "fuck you"

>>28285898
Is exactly the reasoning why they want to stop these companies. They talk shit about the trigger from S&W then say their trigger makes the gun usable. Who gives a fuck if the company is right, the way they are advertising their business and product is wrong.

File: 1418189738122.jpg (81KB, 678x1000px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 678x1000px

>>28285915
>>28285898
>>28285872
>>28285843

its like if Chip Foose fixed up my stingray with a new engine and ignition system and i sold it as a "Chip Foose Stingray."
Would it be illegal for me to sell my car?

>Its still a fucking Stingray, just with Chip Foose Modifications
just like the offending firearm is still an M&P, but with Apex modifications.

They aren't stealing the trademark, they are just calling the firearm what it is, an M&P

File: 1449565130701.gif (691KB, 255x209px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 255x209px

What exactly are they refering to by 'Infringing Product'?

If its parts that have the S&W logo on them, then they're fully entitled to do all this. Thats not alright in any way to do.

File: IMG_2140.jpg (636KB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 1632x1224px

>>28285896
Introducing the New S&W MP rear end protector

Just because you like to open yourself up doesn't mean you should open up yourself up to attack from behind during your most intimate moments.

>>28285873


>Saying they straight cant do it, charge others for the work, or that they have to RETURN ALL PROPERTY THEYVE PURCHASED is overstepping bounds.

actually its WELL WITHIN THEIR LEGAL BOUNDS, dipshit

its to stop the offender from continuing to produce the offending product and pay for any harm caused for the offenders actions up to this point.

you really dont have any idea how this shit works and you're naking yourself look like a jackoff

>>28285956

>I dont know what Im talking about

That's not the issue being faced. Do you honestly think that simple parts swap causing depot level work would not be a bigger deal before this?

Save for the whole Salient bullshit that drills through guns, but that's just an understandable issue of "you took a dremel to this thing, no we wont honor the warranty."

Know what company is not doing this?

Glock.

>>28285971
Homes and cars arent treated the same as typical proprietary products.

>>28285914
how about "not be a communist"


that would be a good start

>>28285965
>They talk shit about the trigger from S&W then say their trigger makes the gun usable.
and? Thats fucking truth, man. If anything, they just quote customers, whom have the right to say anything they want (for the most part). Every company quotes positive reviews, whats new?

>Who gives a fuck if the company is right, the way they are advertising their business and product is wrong.
>i dont care if they are legally right, i think they are wrong

how the fuck else do you advertise a trigger for a specific gun without mentioning the specific gun? you're an idiot.

File: 1444802297158.jpg (26KB, 650x432px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 650x432px

>>28285975
Finally got me. Weird it took a dick.

Its like taking a perfume, adding a few drops of lavender in it, and calling it x brand + lavender. You cany do it. You can sell the lavender drops seperatly and allow the customer to add them or you could even add them for the customer, but modifying a product and reselling it is going to get you in trouble.

>>28285984

>offending product

Aftermarket parts and custom smithing?

I had my Ruger SP101's action cleaned up by a gunsmith, better ship that one off to Ruger.

And my AK has a G2 trigger, better sendit to century.

And magpul stocks on colts, oh my.

This doesnt hold water which is why S&W are the only ones putsuing this.

Fucking GLOCK isnt persuing this.

>>28285974
so if i have a custom auto shop n buy some f-150s in which i put new engines in to satisfy customer demand, i would have to take the "Ford" logo off?
No, you're retarded. Adding a new part to something does not mean it is no longer a (Ford/M&P)

>>28285960
Ok, so he might not know.

But if nike outfitted isis with new clothes and sweat bands, id expect tiger to stop promoting nike.

>>28285918
this case is the other end of the spectrum, its like taking windows, changing the kernel, selling it as a windows product, then sending people to microsoft when it blue screens

>>28286005
They aren't selling a product.
The customers pay for a service; a modification to an already existing product.

>>28286005
Aimpoint doesn't sue LaRue for selling a package deal with their Mount attatched to an Aimpoint Brand Aimpoint.

Get fucked.

>>28286016

And microsoft can say "we're not fixing this."

End of chain of events.
and no one except S&W is butthurt about ot.

>>28286028
THIS
>THIS
THIS
>THIS

>>28286023

Maybe they should...

>>28286009
Custom smithing is different. You bought the product. You can pay to have it modified, this is not copyright infringment. You were not sold a new gun pre modified by a company with an extra label on it. I dont know but does apex sell pre modified guns or any other modification manufacturer sell proprietary guns with their modifications already installed? I am pretty sure they cannot do thisfor the same reason. You can modify it after you purchase but a 3rd party cant do it and sell it.

>>28285961
>then dont honor the warranty.

excpet people are fucking idiots and wont understand WHY S&W wont honor the warranty on a new gun.

then they get pissed and go online and bitch about things they know nothing about.

just like this retarded thread

>>28285996
Yeah? Your fucking feelings don't trump laws and regulations.

You want to sell a replacement trigger? State the weight of the trigger pull, the quality of the trigger, the ease of replacement.

Where you keep fucking failing is that you inject your feelings like these anti-gun cunts. Congrats - you now know how they feeling when trying to ban our hobby.

>>28286043

Apex does not.

Most places I know of that do this are Salient and that other place ATEI?

Both places not mentioned in the cease and desist letter.

Both places that Glock ALSO isnt sending cease and desist orders to.

>>28286023
They can if they want. Im not saying s&w should i am just saying the law is on their side. I dont like copyright laws or patents, both hurt consumers and hold back inovation. Copyright was indroduce with walt disney trying to protect his precious ameribucks

File: 1445069393093.png (81KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 350x350px

>>28286048
Just like youtube comments.
But a gun company turned gun grabber is just heresy.

>>28286048

Point to a single thread where this is occurring.

And glock, with much larger aftermarket and modification support, is not doing this.

>>28286048
See
>>28286028

>>28286016
true, but you should still be able to send your laptop back to alienware because the USB ports stopped working

>i put a stippling job on my grip
>my barrel cracked, S&W, you gotta fix your product
>"hurr, you modified your gun, its no longer under warranty."

They should be held responsible for their products, regardless of what is sitting next to it. If the trigger or aftermarket part breaks, then the aftermarket company is responsible, simple as that

The grey area comes from, "did this aftermarket cause the failure?"

>>28285777
Do people actually buy M&Ps that disgusting? Holy shit

>>28286090
Not only do they buy them, they pay 3x the price for them. Autism wins again.

>>28286014
yes, actually thats EXACTLY how it works
because you're CHANGING THE ACTUAL PRODUCT.

because when you drive down the street FORD can no longer ensure that you're vehicle is SAFE AGAINST MECHANICAL FAILURE, so if the engine seizes up at 75mph and causes a 15 car pile-up that kills a bus full of nuns and newborns that FORDS COMPANY IMAGE isn't slandered all over the news for few weeks.

Like it or not companies have an image to maintain that has a TANGIBLE VALUE that their products logo represents that can FINANCIALLY HURT THEM if YOU DO SOMETHING STUPID WITH IT and infringing on that intellectual property is ILLEGAL.

you might own that Ford truck, but they own that oval logo on the front

>>28286090
Some people were simply brought up that they are the single most special person ever brought upon the planet and believe that everything they own must follow that idea.

>>28286116

>expecting the headline not to read "loud douche in douched up douche truck kills nuns like a douche"

>>28286116
I'm sure they're losing sleep over their 20+ year old products that are held together with aftermarket junk.

>>28286116
Thats like saying OEM parts are illegal modifications because they werent from a ford dealership, and haynes and chilton manuals are now the new anarchist cook books.

>>28286028
>>28286037
and when microsoft doesnt fix the image with the microsoft logo on it people still get pissed at microsoft because they were led to believe that its a microsoft sanctioned product.

then microsoft has to deal with bad company image and possibly lawsuits by retards

>>28286134
that's mostly true, they are under no obligation to fix any work done by you or anyone else that they do not approve of.

>>28286116
>a driver killed people, it's the ford's fault!
>a s&w was used in a murder, it's the guns' fault!

Great logic there newfriend.

File: 37399862.jpg (124KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 400x400px

>>28286116
>S&W shill detected
wow, you really are butthurt.

I never said it was still the company would be liable if an accident occured, especially if its relating to the aftermarket part
>if i put blackout halogen headlights on my truck and the engine seized, causing an accident, yes, ford would still be responsible.

If i put a new fuel injectors on my car, that doesnt mean its no longer an F-150, but if those injectors cause a problem, ford isnt responsible because the aftermarket part was the cause or played a part in the failure.

>If I put a lift kit on my F-150 it would still be an F-150, just lifted.

>>28286143
>>28286150
See
>>28286028

Consumers have a voice, that will never change.

>>28286060
>gun grabber

while i apreciate your attempt at logical fallacy, Im forced to point out that a company suing another company for return of a product involved in aforementioned lawsuit is not gun grabbing and you're an idiot for characterizing it as such

>>28286143

Where Is this occurring?

I'll wait.

I get that S&W is overreacting, but the fact remains that salient puts their name on the gun, so if it's shit it's their fault the only name on Apex's gun is S&W.

>>28286203

Salient isnt being served in these letters.

>>28286188
The 4th page, it says turn over infringing property to s&w.

Gun grabber seems appropriate.

>Inb4 but its not you retard!

They are "grabbing" his "guns"

>>28286207
yes because they put "salient arms international" on the side, so everyone knows where the gun came from.
The only name on Apex's gun is S&W.

>>28286218

But APEX DOESNT SELL GUNS.

>>28286218

Show me the "Brownells series M&P".

>>28286218
>>28286225

Checkmate.

File: SW-MP-SHIELD.jpg (102KB, 950x600px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 950x600px

M&P Shields are still okay, r-right?

>>28286203
Apex isn't selling guns, only triggers.

What S&W is doing is sueing companies for making aftermarket parts to their product that's better and claiming copyright infringement to do it.

>buy a F-150
>see cool mud tires that need to be installed by a mechanic
>purchase mud tires for F-150 and get installed
>Ford sues the company making the tires for copyright infringement

This won't hold up in court and I'm not going to buy another S&W if they keep this up.

>>28286245
If they have the Apex trigger, sure

>>28285820
>letter dated december 2015
>demands response by january 5, 2015
Man, fuck shit&lessen. I'm ashamed I used to be sich a big fan of their products.

But fuck me my shield 9 is great...

>>28286086
stipling of a grip, which is a cosmetic change, and doing what Apex does, which is at minimum changing A TRIGGER, which is A KEY FUCKING PART OF THE MECHANISM OF THE GUN isnt even comparable

>>28286261
What are the deal with Apex triggers? Do they just have a lighter pull?

>>28286283
Shorter travel and reset, removes the "grit" for those who can't into polishing a sear properly.

>>28286270
I wonder if that'll help in court.
Like all those women and bill cosby, didnt that all flop cause it happened too long ago to bring up again?

Not trying to derail here, Thats the only example i could think of at the moment.

>>28286225
>>28286236
>>28286238
I understand that S&W is overreacting, and will likely drop the matter, but the fact remains the gun was provided to a company by companies, while not leaving proof of their work. It still says S&W, they could have avoided all of this if someone had put a name on it. it's not about the parts it's the work that was done and the fact that Apex gave what is basically a complete product made by S&W to another company.

>>28285803
This tells you everything right here. They're modifying the gun to the extent that S&W feels it is an entirely new product yet RETAINING the S&W trademarks on it.

S&W then cites case law showing the precedence for it. S&W is telling them to remove their trademarks from the product.

>>28286283

They turn the shit (yes, even post 2013) into something decent.

Kinda like the skimmer trigger.

>>28286132
>>28286133
the argument is that a companies name has value, and if you take their product, modify it heavily, and try to sell it as still being their product, or alternatively your own product, then you are infringing on their rights.

you guys do understand what rights are?

>>28286250
But is the Ford name on the new tires?
When companies like Hennessy do work on brand names they put their name along side, so if it fails it says Hennessy right next to Ford.

>>28286299

Except all the companies being served dont make guns or sell completed guns.

They only sell parts or due custom work on customer's weapons.

>Machine the slide, replace trigger, and add stipling.
>Create a distinct new look to the firearm yet retain the S&W trademarks and sell it using the S&W trademarks
Apex is in the wrong, retards.

>>28286310

I do.

But considering that no one being servedwith these letters is actually selling completed guns I have to ask the question.

Do YOU know what rights are?

Because S&W sure dont.

>>28286323
They're selling a service that fundamentally changes the gun and selling it as a "Dream M&P" (see the fucking notice). That's trademark infringement, pal.

>>28286299
>>28286310

THE NAMED COMPANIES IN THIS CEASE AND DESIST DO NOT SELL GUNS

This means they are NOT re-selling a product without express written permission of the original manufacturer with the same name. These are CUSTOMER owned weapons that are being built with the knowledge that the weapon will NOT have a warranty, nor be covered under any campaigns by S&W.

What the fuck do you guys not understand about that?

>>28286340

>muh butthurt

Tell it to me walking S&W shill.

Glock isnt doing it first, so no wonder youre fucking it all up.

File: hqdefault-2.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>28286152
Uh, thats exactly how civil law works on some instances....

welcome to real life

>>28286347
Except the gun in question is not owned by a individual but by a company.

>>28286327
>>28286340
>>28286310


Where is the "Dream M&P" listed for sale then, gents?

I'll fucking wait.

ITT: people that don't understand how businesses work.

You can:

>buy products and modify them for personal use

You cannot:

>buy products, modify them and then sell them to other people under the same brand

They make a good example of Rolex and other watch brands that sued companies for modifying their products and reselling them.

>>28286207
yeah, and the post you're responding to describes exactly why.

reread it

>>28286362
So the "Dream M&P" is owned by 6 different companies?

>>28286367
see>>28286362

>>28285893
what am i looking at here? i can tell its broken but any other context?

>>28286367

Except none of the people involved are selling completed guns.

>>28285766
Holy shit, this is just like what happened to them back in 2000 all over again.

>>28286322
I see your point. Apex isn't in the trigger so the trigger can be assumed to be S&W? So Apex just needs to engrave Apex on their trigger and S&W has no case.

>>28286375
I did.

The S&W shills are conflating that Apex is doing the same level work that companies like Salient are (redale of modded guns)

Which is blatantly not the case.

Point out what I missed?

>>28286390
I was 7. What happened?
Want me to just look it up?

>>28286392
Apex doesnt have to be on the trigger.

You cant sue somebody to put THEIR name on THEIR product.

>>28286208
asking an end user to return a product, or using the force of government to confiscate the property from an individual exercising their second amendment rights is equivalent to 2 companies suing each other in civil court over trademarks.

they arent even in the same solarsystem.

>>28286363
Apex put it out in a press release on the 18th and said it was going to be at the SHOT Show 2016.

Did you even read any of the images?

https://www.apextactical.com/blog/index.php/apex-news/apex-teams-with-top-custom-builders-on-brownells-dream-gun/

What is the big deal here?

They're just telling a third party too use their own logo instead of the s&w logos on aftermarket parts

sounds reasonable too me

>>28286392
it's not about the individual changes it's about the sum of the changes, a simple "Brownells Dream Gun by Apex Tactical" along the slide might have kept them in the good. it's the lack of the product showing it was worked on by those other companies and that S&W is the only name on it is the problem.

File: 0.jpg (21KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x360px

this entire thread is colion noir samefag-arguing with himself

>>28286437

Theyre not selling a gun.

It's literally a tech demo used to showcase products and services available through Brownells.

This case gets more and more rediculous and nonsensicle the longer I look at it.

>>28286292
criminal law and civil law are different things.

cosby cant be tried in a criminal court because the is a statute of limitations on criminal accusations.

there arent normally formal statute of limitations on civil proceedings

>>28286413
They signed an agreement with the clinton administration to abide by gun control rules like adding more safety features to their handguns and S&W dealers couldn't allow children under 18 to access areas where guns were sold.

Let's just say, S&W almost went out of business within a year.

>>28286443
To... not too.

But yeah, not so bad.
Did you read everything in the thread?

>>28286455

>only M&P's name
>on a tech demo gun demonstrating all of brownell's services

Ha.

Haha.

>>28286437
>"The Brownells Dream Guns® Project was started in 2011 to help feature the wide range of parts and accessories available from Brownells that customers can use to upgrade and customize their own pistols, rifles and shotguns. To date over 100 Dream Guns® have been built and are available for review at Brownells.com."

Again, that's like suing Rad Rods by Troy for showing off a one-ff F150 at SEMA that isnt for sale.

GJ bro.

>buying an M&P

There's your problem

>>28286496
Like I said a simple "Brownells dream gun by Apex tactical" on the slide might have kept them clear of this. I know it's semantics, but that's all law really is these days.

>>28286533

>brownells dream gun on slide

Law doesnt let you send cease and desist letters saying to put THEIR name on THEIR products.

And the product in question isnt even for sale.

S&W is fucked up and waving it around for everyone to see.

>>28286533

Maybe they assumed the big banner saying "2015 Brownells Dream Gun" was enough?

Smith and Wesson doesn't want their name and logo on heavily modified products. So they can avoid liability and reputation harm. In the case one of these race guns grenades.

>>28286569

And I hope Brownells and Apex tells them to eat shit.

File: Not_so_Stock_Glock_2.png (250KB, 650x648px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 650x648px

>>28286500
When you look at the rest of the dream guns on the Brownells website you see the brand logos, on things like the slide and barrel. on the gun by apex you see their trigger, which is fine, this isn't about the trigger, what you don't see is all of the custom shops that worked the gun for a company.

Taking your example that F-150 would likely be covered in brand stickers and the parts would have the company name plastered on them when possible.

Smith and wesson is only good for their pre-80's revolvers. Fuck em'. There's a million polymer pistols out there. Yet again American companies prove how shit they are and send Americans packing to support foreign companies.

>>28286597
Too bad almost all foreign companies can't import their firearms thanks to daddy bush and clinton.

File: The-Hog-Ring-–-Auto-Upholstery-Community-–-Rad-Rides-by-Troy-1969-Ford-Torino-1.jpg (81KB, 638x278px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 638x278px

>>28286593
>i-it would be covered in stickers!
>b-brand logos!
>paying thousands to have logos slapped all over your custom one of a kind product

No it fucking wouldnt. Your argument is still so invalid that it hurts.

>>28286606

Glock.
steyr.
canick.
arsenal strike one.
HS2000-er Springfield XD

>>28286550
But why don't they send letters to Salient? Because their name is on the gun for the modifications they did.

>>28286550
This shit happens all the time well beyond the world of guns. Companies see their logo on a product made it modified by some other company and they get all salty.

Apex will still be able to make action enhancement kits. They will be able to install them as a service. They will not be able to sell a gun as "Apex brand Smith & Wesson brand M&P" which it didn't sound like they were planning to do anyways.

IP lawyers get jumpy and do stupid shit like this every single day in this country. Very little will come of it. S&W is not going to have the ATF come shoot your dog. Jesus Christ, /k/.

>>28286617

And because Salient has already been doing this for a few years.

And S&W have gone nuts.

>>28286615
Oh, I was thinking of rifles and shotguns, not pistols. But China is one country completely shut out from here, and they're products have gotten better since 1994.

>>28286625

>still thinking Apex is selling guns

Sometimes I wish I had mod privelages for six minutes.

>>28286635
Sometimes I wish people would read every word I put in a post, since I put them there for a reason.

>>28285766
How would you like it if you made a candy. Then I started mixing my brand of Vomit™ flavored candy to your candy and began selling it under your name.

>>28286647

>starts off talking bullshit about a situation he knows not to be the case
>expects me to put more effort reading his post as he took to write it

File: JCL_7808.jpg (66KB, 674x449px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 674x449px

>>28286617
>>28286627

So..... why isn't SAI being sued into oblivion yet?

>>28286661
>They will not be able to sell a gun as "Apex brand Smith & Wesson brand M&P" which it didn't sound like they were planning to do anyways.
>it didn't sound like they were planning to do anyways.
Get off my board, you lazy, illiterate God-damned nigger.

>>28286652

S&W please stop.


Youre making a scene.

>>28286405
you keep saying S&W shills.

no one is advertising S&W products or saying how great they are.

we're arguing about the merits of a legal action, Im nlt sure how you make the mental leap from that to "shilling for a company" inless you're just a meme spouting idiot

i dont even own a smit but i dont like thieves, which is what you are when you steal someone elses intellectual property or trademarks.

you seem to be totally cool with that.

>>28286606
That's what makes this so fucking funny. American gun companies are such shit (besides the AR market, and sadly Ruger) that even with all the hoops foreign companies have to go through, they still make better products at cheaper prices. Imagine if Russia and China could deal in the US firearms market?

The fuck guys... I never thought I'd be here saying the only US company listening to gun owners is Ruger.

>>28286669

Write something that matters cracker.

Or how about, dont defend shitty companies with arguments you KNOW not to be the case.

>>28286390
its actually nothing like that at all

>>28286613
No one sells a new 1969 Torino, but S&W still make, sells, and services M&Ps.

>>28286661
At least you admit you're shitposting then, unlike the rest of the reactionary alarmists in this thread.

No, Apex aren't selling whole guns.
Yes, S&W lawyers are being retarded.
No, it's not time to collectively lose our shit and sell every S&W product we may own and go full SJW/Occupy/boycott on them.

>>28286671

>arguing merits of legal action

Which have been ripped to threads eight ways to sunday.

S&W has no leg to stand on.

So either a conveyer belt of people are logging onto 4chan and just not bothering to read the thread.

Or S&W is doing damage control.

And the precanned responses in favor of S&W are giving my shill senses a tingle.

>>28286689
S&W doesn't have the right to tell you what to do with your property, which is what the gun is.

They are concerned as far as saying "additional confusion may also occur at a later time if the product is sold to secondary purchasers as "USED".

Where do you draw the line on THAT slippery slope? COULD Ford sue a man who gutted a 1969 Ford Torino because it has a trademark on the front of it?

This really is a case of S&W's lawyers shutting the bed over absolutely nothing. Those companies got together and put together a single gun that isn't for sale to show off what you can do with your own M&P.

None of the companies sell complete firearms based on the M&P or any complete firearms for that matter (Brownells sells AR lowers but that's a different matter), if you buy an M&P you could send it to these companies or buy parts from them and modify your gun but I'm fairly certain most of these places flat out state you'll torpedo your warranty by letting them customize it.

The big thing here is not a single other firearms company has done shit like this, even companies like HK don't get ass blasted if some gunsmith shows off a rebuilt SL8 or a jacked up VP9. But S&W did.

>>28286682
>better products at cheaper prices....imagine if russia and china...

Fuck off commie slavaboo

RUSSIAN gun makers make a single product line that hasnt essentially changed in 60 years and millions of which already exist. they have a metric fucktons of surplus that was manufactured under slave labor conditions and sell that cheaply.

The Chinese CURRENTLY use people working in slave labor conditions.

American manufacturers consistently offer new products that sometimes have a teething period and still manage to fix it, do R&D for new shit, and be profitable

>>28286756
Yes they can't tell YOU (Individual) what to do with what YOU (Individual) purchased, but they can tell a group of COMPANIES (Not individuals) what they can and can't do with THEIR (S&W M&P) Logo and brand name.

>>28286712
>Which have been ripped to threads eight ways to sunday.

lol, not really, and Apex, Brownells, etc. are going to either copitulate to S&W, pay S&W to go away, or lose badly in court.

in fact im screen capping your post to show you how wrong you are later down the road

>>28286777
>American manufacturers consistently offer new products that sometimes have a teething period and still manage to fix it, do R&D for new shit, and then institute cost-cutting measures on newer generations that result in an inferior product.

>>28286804

>i'll screen cap you post

Best be careful that it's only my posts. If you repost anything from all the S&W shills they MIGHT send their lawyers after you.

>>28286782
>Sees modified M&P
>buys M&P
>gets it modified

And S&W think this is bad.

Because "Muh historical Fabulous Quality Insignia" we brand on every piece of the gun

Good, fuck them and their shitty outdated Sigma.

>>28285975
This begs the question as to why you have a dildo
Why not a Dragon dildo?

>>28286825
This goes back to the Salient arms argument, the only name on the gun that was modified by a company (Not individual) is S&W.

>>28286825

You dont understand.

If you mod your M&P you might break it and when you send it in to S&W to get it fixed they'll have to tell you the work voided the warranty.

And that will be awkward for everyone. So it's better to make fools out of ourselves and do stupid shit like this.

>>28286844

And you cant sue someone to put their name on their products.

That's not how trademark law works.

>>28286782
A corporation is a person, suck it.

>>28286864
But you can make them stop selling it. look at the Rolex case they reference.

>>28285777
nice

>>28286878

But no one is reselling guns.

Just custom work available.

>>28286874
>A corporation (sometimes referred to as a C corporation) is an independent legal entity owned by shareholders. This means that the corporation itself, not the shareholders that own it, is held legally liable for the actions and debts the business incurs.

>>28286844
Which, if you took two seconds and looked at it, you would know that there is more than S&W going on with that pistol, and there will be article upon article on what got used where on a production gun. Everybody fucking wins, except the shitlord IP lawyers they hired to "protect" the S&W name

>>28286852
RTFM, it states that any non-factory alterations void the warranty. Welcome to 1980.

>>28286878
They are NOT
SELLING
COPYRIGHTED
WEAPONS

>>28286897
There was an exchange between a group of companies that took another companies product and preformed work on it creating what is viewed as a new product, whether it's sold or not is not what matters.

Ford doesn't use company funds to buy a Chevy, send it to a dozen custom shops, and use it to show off what another company is capable of.

>>28286825
That principle helped me buy a 10/22.

When I saw all the crap you can do with them, it was obvious.

>>28286756
if you take a 69 torino and try to sell it as new ford production torino then you're open to lawsuits by ford, its not about the torino, its about what you're doing with fords trademark

>>28286926

Im not quite understanding what your argument has to do with what's going on.

Have you tried reading the thread? Help sort your ideas out before typing?

>>28285886
Do it. Glorious waffle iron has yet to let me down. Holsters and mags are rarer though, so be warned

>>28286021

But they aren't marketing it as a service, it's clearly marketed as a product - the "M&P Dream Gun." A lot of legal crap like this isn't so cut and dry and there's quite a bit of subjectivity. They also reference the safety thing which may or may not be a liability issue or maybe just some legalese way of trying to intimidate them

>>28286933

>try to sell a 69 as new production

I understand why it's illegal, because taking money from vulnerable adults is wrong.

>>28286964

>they are clearly marketing a product
>a product that none of the people are selling in this form
>it's TOTALLY a clear cut and dried cade of copyright law guise

Schlomo & Son must have been the creative team behind this IP suit.

File: DreamGun-5.jpg (3MB, 2048x1448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2048x1448px

>>28286964
Do you not know what the "dream Gun" project is?

Also, Look what else is on the slide.

>>28286897
they're using the S&W brand to sell products and services, products that aren't S&W and services that alter actual S&W products.

what dont you understand that they are USING S&Ws name without S&Ws permission?

just because Glock or HK doesnt care doesnt mean they shouldnt, or maybe they're just waiting to see how the S&W vs brownells thing plays out.

this is a legal issue between companies that OP is getting buttflustered to the point of being ludicrous about and is frankly none of his fucking business unless he owns stock in the concerned parties.

this whole fucking thread is dildos and trills fucking each other with dildos

>>28287000
>>28287002

Dude I don't know anything about the case except what I read in the first few posts. I was just making the case that there is a lot of subjectivity when it comes to these kinds of things, I don't give a shit about Apex or S&W.

>>28287020

Again.

Dont let Colt know or they might sue Magpul out of business.

>>28286976
lol, no.

>>28287002
God that looks like absolute ass, no wonder S&W is pissed.

File: Disguised Weapons.jpg (266KB, 571x2575px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 571x2575px

>>28285829
>>28285896
>>28285975
Reminds me of pic related

>>28285820
Can't you just include a disclaimer saying "this gun has been modified from its original configuration by Blowndeadline customs, please direct any service requests to them"?

I would suggest meeting with a competent lawyer to figure out what is needed (if anything) to legally continue to make and market your products, submitting to S&W's demands at this point would be straight up retarded

>>28287036
But magpul doesn't use their money to purchase a Colt AR-15 and then send it to 5 custom shops and then throw their stock on it to show off what midwayusa can provide.

File: herecometheshills.jpg (90KB, 600x449px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 600x449px

>>28287020
They are using the M&P name, if you read the article. But you didn't. Figures.

How about this:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_782660_-1_782658_757964_image

These Usage Rights pertain to Smith & Wesson Corp. authorized distributors, dealers, licensees, customers, and other parties wishing to use Smith & Wesson® brand logos, trademarks, or copyrighted images in promotional, advertising, instructional, or reference materials, or on their web sites, products, labels, or packaging.

The above logos, trademarks, and copyrighted images belong to Smith & Wesson Corp. Only Smith & Wesson Corp. and its authorized distributors, dealers and licensees may use Smith & Wesson brand logos, trademarks, and copyrighted images (collectively the "Materials") in advertising, promotional, and other documentation. Such authorized parties may use the Materials only as specified in their agreement with Smith & Wesson and any associated guidelines, instructions, or by express written permission.


If we look here, we see that Brownells is using their logos to sell S&W parts, which would entail that Brownells has the exclusive rights as a distributor to use the S&W trademarks.

http://www.brownells.com/handgun-parts/grip-parts/grips/grip-gray-lady-smith-prod14661.aspx


So why then, is Brownells named in the C&D?

>>28287113
Because S&W no longer considers what they are showing to be an M&P and should no longer carry their label because they feel it goes against their companies best interest.

>>28287147
So, again, they don't want you to modify your own property.

Gotcha.

>>28286852
lol if your shit gets fucked up by aftermarket you send it to the aftermarket company

>>28287156
They don't want a company (Again, this isn't about individuals modifying their guns) showing off products for their gun in a state that they think is not conducive to their image.

>>28285896
>>28285829
These shitty chink knives are the worst, I'm amazed S&W lets these faggots use their trademark and yet gets pissy about people selecting their guns for high end modifications (which is really free advertising)

>>28287173
The image I'm getting from S&W is they don't like being told that their product is garbage.

But what do I know.

>>28287173
>stop building things we dont like!

S&W in one post.

I hope the free markets crucify them.

>>28287176
I am thoroughly convinced that the 'steel' for those knives is actually a derivative of coke can aluminum

>>28287113
>Brownells named
They sell Apex parts e.g. http://www.brownells.com/handgun-parts/action-parts/firing-pin-parts/firing-pin-blocks/s-w-m-p-ultimate-striker-block-kit-prod41316.aspx

where if you're a complete moron, you may assume that they are S&W parts, not parts for the S&W

>>28287156
you consistently either refuse to understand the issue which has been explained to you ad nauseum, or are intentionally misrepresenting it.

im out.

>>28287219

There are a lot of retarded MUH RIGHTS types on this board who are 100% convinced that because they paid for something they can do whatever they want with it. while it should be that way, it's not, and they just can't understand that.

>>28287189
Ever since the M&P's inception it has had well known trigger issue's and the universally recognized solution was to install a Apex Trigger.

Instead of addressing/fixing this well publicized flaw, they instead ignored it and pretty much embraced the Apex upgrade for the last 10 damn years. It has become the industry wide standard for M&P upgrade's.

At this point it's their own damn fault. They embraced the suck and/or alternative (apex) for 10 years and are now suddenly butt hurt.

>>28287110
This is the sole good post ITT

>>28286777
I'm not a slavaboo, hence the part where I excluded the AR market and Ruger. Ruger is actually innovating and listening to the market (ruger precision rifle). I guess you could say Sig Exeter is fighting the good fight but... they aren't purely an American company. This is what I mean, it takes a foreign company to set up shop here in the states to bust the ATF's balls.

Or look at ammo prices. For fucksakes if China could manufacturer ammo for us we'd been knee deep in cheap brass, and if Russia wasn't mostly blocked from importing surplus... sheeeeeit.

File: 1438793424892.jpg (119KB, 654x600px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 654x600px

>>28285820
> 3. Turn over to Smith & Wesson your inventory of Infriging Product, or any Smith & Wesson product modified by you in the first instance that bears any mark owned by Smith & Wesson.
Is this serious? Are they going to want me to turn in my Shield that I put an Apex trigger in now too?

>>28287216
http://www.brownells.com/magazines/handgun-magazines/magazines/m-p-9mm-magazines-prod23208.aspx?avs%7cMake~~Model_1=Smith+zzxzz+Wesson__MzzxzzP

Are you always this retarded?

>>28287229
No, they do have every right as an individual to do as they please. What a company (I'm beginning to think no one can see that word or make it read individual in their head) does with someone else product is what is being called into question, not that a gun was modified, but that a company is showcasing an extreme departure form the other dream guns. if you go to the dream gun page, all of the products shown are simple off the shelf drop in parts, the M&P that apex provided is no where near an off the self drop in product. From S&Ws perspective that gun does not represent what an M&P from their company is supposed to be.

tl;dr S&W is over reacting and people have no idea what the difference between individual and company rights are.

>>28287288
No, you as an individual have every right to do as you please with your property.

A company on the other hand has a few more restrictions.

it has to be some butthurt CEO or other officer level person who just found out about the fact that people are modding their guns. there's no other explanation.

File: image.jpg (31KB, 552x523px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 552x523px

>>28285766
>hk hates the civilian market

I fucking love this meme

>>28287219
>I have no ground to stand on

Bye.

>>28287229
>"we cant change things because someone else says so, no use trying to do whats right"

:^)

File: 1443015808146.jpg (57KB, 780x585px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 780x585px

>>28285766
>Buying Americu.ck guns
>willingly giving money to manufacturers that purposefully overprice their shit
>willingly giving money to manufacturers that give civilians the bottom barrel shit and only QC the guns they give to LEO and Military
>willingly giving money to manufacturers that are only progun as long as they feed money to the NRA and hold them at ransom to do things like cut off imports from china and russia that make better guns for half the price.
>willingly giving money to a manufacturer that literally made a deal with clinton himself about gun control
>willingly giving money to manufacturers that would comply with bullshit laws and give neutered as fuck guns to places like NY and CA and continue to do business with the places thus funding the Anti-gun politicians
>willingly giving money to manufacturers who dont care about you or your rights at all.

The only two companies exempt are Ruger and Mossberg, if you buy from any other american company you might as well be directly giving money to Bloomberg and Co. and you do not deserve even one spare bullet.

>>28285898
>it's like buying a thousands f-150
and
>actively competing with ford
See the disconnect here yet?

>>28287325
Okay Alex C. Why don't you tell us why they won't set up a factory here to produce their rifles or export parts kits?

>>28285873
A swing and a miss.

File: are you fucking kidding me.png (83KB, 358x375px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 358x375px

>>28285820

They should just grind off all S&W marks and keep selling them. But at least I can cross any S&W product off my list.

>>28285905
No, fucktard. Hennessey will modify your car or sell you a Hennessey Venom. They don't sell Vipers.

>>28287457
German law. They're under enough pressure from the bundeswehr for plastic reunions they can't afford to rock the boat. German politicians are dicks. It's why Sig Saur HQed in Saur's backyard and not Sig's backyard.

>>28287775
They have at least two manufactoring plants in the US, but still use that excuse of "germany wont let us!"

Its bullshit, even one of their presidents has stated he would like to see guns out of the hands of civilians, and they even make their rifles in the states, but claim its due to importation laws as a cop out and then try to charge 3k for one rifle.

dont buy into it, HK hates you

>>28286023
Don't tell Mark.

>>28287775
And they can't do the same? If the country you're HQ'd in is shit for your company you move.

>>28287586
Thank God one less fur fag and weeb to associate with s&w.

The truth is that what Smith is demanding has precedent. And while if I were Apex I wouldn't return anything to them. What some of you don't get is that when you buy a product you are agreeing to certain things as an "END USER" (which is a legally defines status) you agree to respect the trademark when you buy the product. In many ways you don't own that product, it's more like you posses it. It's a lot like what Sony did about people putting different OSs on the PS3, even old Uncle Sam had to acquiesce to Sony on that one.

>>28285820
When they make demands like that it's certain they're gearing up for a lawsuit if they're not met. They're absolutely right, you can't just modify their product and call it your own. A saiga modified by Krebs is not a Krebs custom Krebs shooter model Kreb Krebs, its a modified saiga unless izhmash gives them passive or explicit authorization otherwise.

Likewise, the "silencerco pistol" isn't a silencerco pistol, its 75% m&p pistol 15% silencer (+10% pure shit). You can't just rebrand a manufacturers product and sell it as your own for profit, not because s&w says so but because the law says so. Y'all niggas don't understand the laws regarding this nor the logic behind them.

It's also a dumb move to release the letter, s&w can use that in court as an attempt at slander.

>>28288155

>releasing S&W's own cease and desist letter is slander
>cant put drop in products into tech demo guns for hands on demonstration at trade shows

I want S&W to go and stay go.

>>28288183
>drop in products
>milled slide
>part that requires modification to the trigger bar
K

File: 1.maxim_9.png (2MB, 2000x1298px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1298px

>>28288155
This is what I'm talking about. This is an m&p with a monstrosity attached, not a "silencerco brand silenced silencercogun"

The reasoning behind this law is if someone calls the gun a silencerco gun when it was really made by s&w it takes the credit away from s&w. Silencerco is now getting all the credit and brand fame for a product that s&w made. Things like this require authorization or they're illegal. It would be like me remixing Justin Beibers "Baby" and saying that I wrote, sung, recorded it, and then I began selling it for money. Its when you start profitting off it that it breaches intellectual property laws, because you're then taking profits and brand fame from the original creator.

>>28288212

>cant mill your own slide to do tech demo
>apex triggers require modification to trigger bar because one TOTALLY isnt included with the kit

May as well type " From the desk of Shylock and Associates" at the bottom of your posts.

>>28288155
>>28288218
??? What I got out of the letter was that S&W was complaining about the pistols still being called M&P pistols and still having S&W's markings on them.

>>28288218

>profits and brand fame for doing what the original company didnt

Maybe if glock did this first, S&W would have a building block on how to do it correctly?

>>28285896

That habanero ranch sauce sounds tasty.

_____________ this type of person buys Smith and Wesson firearms.

>>28288252

S&W doesnt know what or why S&W is doing.

Trying to prescribe a motive is giving them WAY too much credit and is spending more energy than S&W did in pursuing this.

>>28286652
lol

>>28288241
Wanna show me where it says trigger bar included?
http://www.brownells.com/handgun-parts/trigger-group-parts/trigger-parts/triggers/s-w-m-p-forward-set-sear-trigger-kit-prod45404.aspx

I like Apex, I'm planning on buying this very same kit for my M&P. I'm glad to see S&W stopping the creation of this abortion. I think the gun was fine until that blown deadline hack put his fingers on it. On par with the pony fags painting mosins and mausers with mlp shit. Whatever, this isn't going to affect me so I won't complain S&W just to spite posters like you.

M&P fags btfo, Glock wins again

>>28285799
Because when you buy a S&W it doesn't say: "This item is property of SnW and we reserve the right to reclaim it upon request" When you buy it, they lose ownership and as long as Apex doesn't claim to own the original product S and W can Fuck Off

>>28288701
You're simply wrong, it's implied consent and by purchasing the item you gave your implied consent. Remember when the USAF had to sell all those ps3s because Sony disabled the ability to use their hardware with different software? It doesn't matter how shitty it is for s&w to do, there are precedents for what they're doing.

>>28288283
Oh god its like British Leyland all over again

>>28285820
Obliterate the markings, and the gunsmith team can show off and sell the dream gun all they like. S&W has their panties in a bunch because Brownells/Apex etc are selling (NOT modifying for a customer, but displaying and advertising) trademarked M&Ps when S&W didn't approve of the mods.

Basic fucking trademark enforcement. HK does the exact same shit along with Beretta, Glock, and any other gun manufacturer to a custom shop that doesn't have official service center status.

Also note that an independent law firm wrote that letter, I wouldn't be surprised if S&W makes an official statement dialing the threats in that letter back and firing the law firm.

>>28290032
spoiler: they aren't selling the gun
it's a demonstration gun whose job is to look pretty at SHOT

>>28290093
Which is why in the letter the lawyers say "don't sell any of these, and don't use the S&W or M&P logos in your advertising efforts if we didn't approve of this custom work."

I don't know why people find this so hard to understand. If you're going to trick the hell out of it and use it to advertise your company, how hard is it to hide the S&W and M&P logo and replace with a Brownells/Apex/Custom Shop team logo? No trademark infringement.

>>28286023
They're most likely registered Aimpoint Dealers.

Apex/Brownells/those shops are gunsmiths, not dealers, so in all likelihood there's a higher caution they need to take with using trademarks in advertising.

Typing it out as Smith & Wesson M&P in literature to explain parts fit is okay. Many times it includes a disclaimer, "M&P is a registered trademark of Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation" etc etc.

Having a tricked out custom with the S&W or M&P logo prominently displayed in the photo can piss off the factory if you don't get their permission to use it in advertising, like, say, in a registered dealer or service center contract.

>>28290171
So S&W is mad that Brownells doesn't sell S&Ws? Well, I guess that won't be changing anytime soon...

>>28286056
Salient and ATEI replace the Glock markings with their own markings. Glock can't do shit even if they wanted to.

Go to Salient's website. Try to find a picture of advertising on their website with the Glock logo still on the slide. The ones I looked at don't.

ATEI doesn't have pics up on their website.

They cover their asses. Only Glock logos I see on Salient guns are posted by customers and reviewers, not by Salient as advertising.

Glock never sent Brownells a C&D over their dream gun Glocks either

>>28290226

>>28286593
Slide is from different manufacture, so is the barrel, as is just about everything other than the frame. they also never took it to a host of shops, it's all drop in.

>>28285766
ITT:
Gun grabber levels of muh feelings

>>28290211
I had no idea that they did that, only really reinforces the point.

>>28286023
That's not modifying the aimpoint product, that's selling an unmodified aimpoint with an accessory.

File: 1599462-back_up_plan_super.jpg (51KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x480px

>>28286236
>>28285766
>>28286593
>>28287002
>>28287113

we should all call or local S&W dealers and their main office trying to by the brownells series M&P

>>28285766
This is just like trying to put decals on your Ferrari like deadmau5. They threatened to sue him unless he removed it.

The fuck is the problem here? You significantly change something, you should be accurate in what you call it when you go to sell the finished product. This has nothing to do with the end user.

OP as usual is flagrantly sucking cocks.

>>28286489
S&W did go bankrupt. The original company went bellyup and their trademark and equipment were sold at scrap prices to another company and that company restarted the S&W brand.

One of the only consumer boycotts and consumer led market devaluations I know of that actually accomplished its goal and wasn't just whining with no action.

>>28286569
>Smith and Wesson doesn't want their name and logo on heavily modified products. So they can avoid liability and reputation harm. In the case one of these race guns grenades.

Then they get mad for someone remove their trademarks off the product and reselling it as their own.

>>28285914
I already don't buy S&w products because almost all of their semi autos are not on the CA approved list and the revolvers they offer all have hillary holes.

Only smith product I was thinking of ever buying was the M&P 10 as a cheap .3p8 AR-15, but Troy is offering one in the same price range.

>>28285820
S&W is right. You cant sell modified products bearing other's trademarks as your own. S&W has a great case for trademark violations and latham act violations.

>>28285878
No. This is the case with all products. You cannot buy a product, then modify it and sell it as your own, while leaving the trademark of the original company on it. It implies that the original company may sponsor or endorse the modified product.

You can sell parts to modify the S&W M&P, but not a modified S&W M&P without marketing it as a used gun.

>>28285898
This. You cannot modify a product and then market it as new.

>>28293478
where does law of first sale fall in?

>>28285766
>>28285777

Aw... I guess I'll be trying to get a 92FS instead of M&P for first handgat

>>28293478
>No. This is the case with all products. You cannot buy a product, then modify it and sell it as your own, while leaving the trademark of the original company on it. It implies that the original company may sponsor or endorse the modified product.
>You can sell parts to modify the S&W M&P, but not a modified S&W M&P without marketing it as a used gun.

Well shit, this just makes perfect sense. If you were to mod an M&P and then market it as an original, wouldn't it constitute a form of copyright or patent infringement?

>>28293524
>wouldn't it constitute a form of copyright or patent infringement?

That's what SHE said: >>28285777

>'She' being Hara K. Jacobs, intellectual property counsel for Smith and Wesson Corp.
>I don't actually know what sex Hara corresponds to, or indeed if it's a unisex name

>>28293562
>That's what SHE said: >>28285777
>'She' being Hara K. Jacobs, intellectual property counsel for Smith and Wesson Corp.
>I don't actually know what sex Hara corresponds to, or indeed if it's a unisex name

Well fuck, man. I'm leaning to their side then. It makes sense to me. Maybe I've just worked retail for too long.

>>28293574
Also in some countries, the copyright holder has to actively protect its copyright like this even if they don't mind, otherwise that can be used against them in cases where they do.

If a normal person were selling an M&P they had dropped an Apex trigger into and cerakoted, would they be legally allowed to list it as a "S&W M&P", or does that only apply to companies engaging in the business of modifying and reselling guns?

>>28285766
But you must be going full retard to modify a revolver anyway.

>>28293721
I'm really curious to see if Brownells pulls first sale doctrine on this. Basically it says after someone buys something then they're good to go even if they're reselling it (which in this case they are not).

Normal people wouldn't be touched period because S&W would just be wasting their money on the lawsuit

>>28285766
So to be clear this has nothing to do with individuals modifying their weapons. It has to do with companies making aftermarket parts and not adequately distinguishing the aftermarket parts from those made by S&W.

Obviously S&W wouldn't want the customization market to disappear because its a selling point for their guns. What they don't want is companies selling crucial parts that S&W is never able to apply their quality assurance procedures to before the guns are sold under their name. If the aftermarket parts are shit, S&W looks like shit.

>>28285828
>people that dont understand how the law works should be prohibited from discussing it outside of classrooms
If people don't understand the law, then it's a bad law.

Also, obviously, you don't understand the law. What S&W is complaining about here is protected by tons of laws.

>>28293721
They couldn't list the gun as an unmodified M&P. As in they couldn't sell it to someone giving the impression that it would be covered under warranty. That is the issue. That aftermarket companies are telling people that their guns will still be under S&W warranty after being modified.

This has nothing to with the individual. It is entirely legal to modify your own weapons, you simply have to accept that it voids your warranty as with any other product.

>>28295407
>If people don't understand the law, then it's a bad law.

LMFAO

>>28293478
So if I put a different exhaust on my civic, I have to scratch out every instance of "Honda" and "Civic" on the car until it can no-longer be identified as a Honda Civic? That would include the fucking VIN, because the VIN includes the make and model.

It's a fucked up idea perpetuated by an extremely fucked up case that flies in the face of multiple gun laws -- such as "the only part of the gun that's really the fucking gun is the fucking receiver, you whole-sale shittard"

>>28295433
>That aftermarket companies are telling people that their guns will still be under S&W warranty after being modified.
Wut? No, they aren't. S&W is bitching about Brownells and other companies putting together heavily modified "Dream Guns" to show off at Shot Show and Brownells website that are sometimes raffled off.

>>28295471
>People are buying S&W guns from retailers that buy those S&W guns from us!
>This makes us angry!
Is this one of those "any attention is good attention"? Because there are a lot of people, myself included, that were waiting for one more reason to never buy s&w again, and now I have it.

>>28295547
Agreed. It's pretty obvious they are just throwing a tantrum. No one else in the industry is suing.

>>28285777
Hahaha! All this is over some stupid m&p mods? M&P's are garbage pistols, who would ever put up such a stink over them? What a stupid looking mod too.
Also; aside from s&w's pompous writing (our WORLD FAMOUS TRADEMARKS) this is pretty basic defense of IP. If they wanted to sell the modified pistols they need s&w's consent. Cut and dry.

File: image.jpg (120KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 736x552px

>>28290211
Man that big juicy glock logo on the slide doesn't exist?

File: image.jpg (103KB, 959x583px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 959x583px

>>28290211
Man glock being on the frame also confuses me. This could totally be from Glock!
Face it, smith and Wesson is the only company who decided to be fuck faces about a nonissue.

>>28295339

No one will read this because they wants their little chimpout

>>28285886
Sell it to ME!!!!

>>28296311
>tonup magazine
>not official PR/advertising on Salient's site
>>28296324
>Costa Ludus
>not official PR/advertising on Salient's site

Did you even read the last part of my post or were you too busy shitposting?

>>28285766

I'd protest this, but smith's aren't going to be sold in commiefornia soon enough anyways.

>>28296518
They still sell Glocks without removing the logos or origin. Your point is?