Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

M_P

Glock VS Airsplat.

Recommended Posts

Saw this today on one of the blogs i check most days, may be of interest to some.

 

 

GLOCK V. AirSplat: Complaint Against Unlicensed Airsoft Replicas
In the continual exploration of trademark protection GLOCK is striking out against Airsoft replicas of their handguns in a lawsuit against the operators of several business entities best recognized as AirSplat. From what we can tell AirSplat and associated companies are importing functional airsoft handguns with a GLOCK likeness along with utilizing the trademark names of their various for distribution and direct sales within the United States. In the complaint AirSplat claims to be the largest Airsoft Retailer in the country. Apparently, they are not giving GLOCK a taste of the action, which has lead to legal action in Georgia focusing on trademark infringement along with associated complaints against use of trade dress and related tactics associated with marketing and sales.
WE+G19.jpg WE G19 Airsoft Gas Blowback Gun Tan
In our naive notion of how business should be done, we would have assumed a company would purchase licensing to replicate a product and utilize trademarks. It notes in the complaint that AirSplat does purchase licensing for replicas of firearms manufactured by COLT, Walther, and SIG Sauer, however GLOCK is not one of them. As you can see in the photo above, they don't specifically state GLOCK, but there is definitely some similarity to say the least. Not to mention the distinct G19, Gen4, along with other distinct markings that scream GLOCK.

G19+FDE.jpg GLOCK G19 Gen4 FDE from Lipsey's
In response too all infringement claims GLOCK is requesting all profits from the sales of the replicas, damages sustained by GLOCK which may be quite substantial, triplicate of the actual damages, any sum deemed appropriate by the court, attorney's and legal fees, interest, and the destruction of all replicas. Of course they want further infringements to cease.
We think it goes without saying that GLOCK has a strong case. This could serve as a strong example to all importers who look to replicate the success of manufacturers through any replica whether it be a similar product or scaled down version utilized for training or leisure. It doesn't stop with handguns of course and definitely carries over into firearms accessories among any other product you may conjure up. Perhaps they considered licensing but were turned down or simply didn't want to hear the wrong answer. This is merely conjecture that may go in several other directions. In the scheme of things many different entities should be aware of this case to understand where they may be headed if they decide to take similar actions when looking to make a buck.

The complaint not only dwells on the violations alleged to have been committed, but also provides you with a thorough overview of GLOCK and how their brand has been developed. You can view the complete complaint at the following link: Glock V. Wu et. al.

 

http://blog.predatorbdu.com/2014/03/glock-v-airsplat-complaint-against.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would normally say that it should be the airsoft gun manufacturers responsibility to pay for the licensing, but if Airsplat are paying other Real Steal manufacturers for the likenesses/trademarks I think it is only fair that Glock expects to their trademarks to demand royalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"GLOCK is requesting all profits from the sales of the replicas, damages sustained by GLOCK which may be quite substantial, triplicate of the actual damages, any sum deemed appropriate by the court"

What?

Is this basically saying that Glock are labelling every sale of an airsoft Glock as "damage" against them? That is to say, they're almost saying "people are buying your version instead of ours" and they want triple the accumulative profits from that, over all these years it's been happening?

How were they not aware of it before now?

It's ridiculous. Tell them to make an airsoft one and then they've got an argument. The guns aren't sold under the name "Glock" and the trades are different, I don't think there's a case to be had. Game developers do far worse than this all the time and get away with it and I doubt TM are going to give shit number 1 either way, they don't get the thumbs up for any of their trades, do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TM do get the thumbs up for trades from all the RS companies but in return they can only sell them for the JDM.

 

They still end up overseas lol. I was asking a shop about the pending HK45 release and they said they will be stocking them but not advertising they are because they use H&K Trades.

 

I'd imagine this is the case of a lawyer at Glock realising he could make some decent pocket money off this, it would also explain the amusing way they inflate how much they are owed. It happened with the court cases for downloading music - I was reading an article that said a 160GB MP3 player full of music valued at the price they are suing for one track would equate to more music than exists in the world lol.

 

However I have seen plenty of Airsoft Glocks with Glock trademarks of one description or another. My first gun was a spring TM Glock 17 and it had them, so did my KSC Glock 18c. Surely they aren't technically allowed to use any of the trademarks of Glock? Not just they aren't all in the same place as the real steel so it doesn't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×