Bushy beats Colt

[modifiedbrowning]

Anybody have an opinion on this court ruling? It is from www.Bushmaster.com

BUSHMASTER WINS TRADEMARK CASE BROUGHT BY COLT DEFENSE LLC.

Windham, ME (December 8th, 2005) - Richard Dyke, Chairman and principal stockholder of Bushmaster Firearms, is pleased with a December 6 decision of the United States District Court in Maine granting summary judgment for Bushmaster in a trademark case brought by Colt Defense, LLC. In the case, Colt accused Bushmaster of infringing the “M4” trademark and the trade dress of the M4, both of which Colt claimed it owned to the exclusion of others in the industry. In addition to denying Colt’s infringement claims, the Court granted judgment for Bushmaster on its claim for cancellation of Colt’s federal trademark registration for the “M4”.

Dyke said he is pleased, not only for Bushmaster, but for the entire firearms industry. “Colt has for years made all sorts of claims as to rights it asserted belonged only to it,” he said. “And this case clearly shows Colt has been overstating its rights. In this case, the Court determined that the right to use the M4 term and to sell firearms that look like the M4 type, are rights that belong to the industry, not just Colt.”

The Court’s order affirmed a prior recommended decision of a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the case. Among other things, the Magistrate’s decision:

Held that the M4 is a generic term which merely describes a type of firearm, and is not an identifier of Colt as a sole source for such firearms. In doing so, the decision noted that more than a dozen firearm manufacturers other than Colt have used the term M4 for years to refer to military-style carbines with collapsible buttstocks and shortened barrels. Since the M4 term is generic, the court granted judgment for Bushmaster that Colt’s federal trademark registration for the M4 should be cancelled.

Dismissed Colt’s claim for infringement of M4 trade dress both because the alleged trade dress is primarily non-functional and because Colt could not establish that the buying public associated the look of the M4 only with Colt.

Dismissed Colt’s claims for infringement of the terms M16, CAR, MATCH TARGET, AR-15 and COMMANDO because it concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion among purchasers as to the source of Bushmaster’s products.

The Court also held Colt could recover no damages on its only remaining claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

***

 

[IZinterrogator]

Dismissed Colt’s claims for infringement of the terms M16, CAR, MATCH TARGET, AR-15 and COMMANDO because it concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion among purchasers as to the source of Bushmaster’s products.

I'm kind of suprised about the MATCH TARGET and the COMMANDO dismissals. M16 and M4 are military designations and AR-15 is the name of that style of rifle (which Colt did not invent), but the Colt Commando and the Colt Match Target were both names invented by Colt, not others.

 

[Dienekes]

So that's what Colt is up to instead of making better mousetraps. Shades of General Motors...Guess that's the difference between an OODA loop and a death spiral.

 

[Jeff White]

So Bushmaster won the first round. Do you really think there won't be an appeal? FN lost a suit against the Army and Colt over the M4 TDP. There is a good chance the Apellate Court will over turn this decision. Bushmaster may just be counting it's chickens before the eggs are laid.

Considering that there is a lot of case law where businesses in totally different fields have to change their names or product names, I really doubt that this case is over.

Jeff

 

[carolinaman]

Hi there,

Yes, I think both Colt and Bushmaster should stop spending money on legal fees for "patent infringement" suits that get passed along to us: the consumer.

Chris

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I've heard a number of pro-Colt arguments. Some revolved around how the M4 is like a brand name representing a certain level of quality. Colt feels that the AR industry is hurt when LE agencies buy a bunch of Bushmasters thinking they are getting M4 equivalents for cheaper. It is a feature set they are after, and a certain level of quality - that which is associated with the Colt M4 rifles because they are of military spec.


When the agency is dissatisfied, they often do not replace with another brand, but instead look at an alternative platform.


Bushmaster has been riding on somewhat misleading advertising. They fluff up their carbines as M4's without ever really using the name M4. Regardless of the Colt haters say, the Colt is better made weapon in a number of areas and this isn't up for debate, it is fact as you can see the differences in the rifles.



I don't know how valid these claims or arguments are. I don't know if this particular one was used in court or not. I know I haven't articulated them as well as I received them, but that's the gist.


If an agency bought Bushmasters over Colts, chances are it's because they couldn't afford the Colts. In that case, if the Bushmaster doesn't pan out, that is probably the end of their AR experiment.

 

[chrisTx]

Bushmaster has been riding on somewhat misleading advertising. They fluff up their carbines as M4's without ever really using the name M4. Regardless of the Colt haters say, the Colt is better made weapon in a number of areas and this isn't up for debate, it is fact as you can see the differences in the rifles.

it is not 'fact' that colts are better than bushmasters nor is it 'fact' that it's better made. that would be an opinion.

this is big news for bushmaster. colt's patent on the M4 prevents other suppliers from being able to supply the US military with M4 rifles. bushmaster supplied M4s to the US military, primarily used by the 82nd airborne, in the gulf war, but colt threatened to sue the US government because they were buying 'illegal copies' of their rifles. now, bushmaster will be able to contract with the US government to supply M4s; along with any other AR manufacturer. poor colt will have to start charging reasonable prices for their guns.

 

[Roadwild17]

For the consumer this is good news, are fair prices going to be the outcome of these legal battles?

Maby they should just wip out a bushmaster and a colt and let them prove which is the M4

 

[1911 guy]

Colt, schmolt

The prancing pony has gotten to rely on name instead of quality and service for too long. The last time I bought a lower, my dealer had a Colt "Match" or some such nonsense supposing to have a good triger in it. Pulled like a handful of gravel. Bought a DPMS for half the price and have good experience with quality. They won't sell you half of what they make, but they'll take your money by filing idiotic lawsuits. Gee, another reason to be very disenchanted with Colt. I have handled several longarms made by them, shotguns to rifles, and have NEVER been satisfied with one. Cheap manufacturing and cutting corners too much. The last time I picked up a Colt, it felt like pot metal.

 

[ARperson]

the Colt is better made weapon in a number of areas and this isn't up for debate, it is fact as you can see the differences in the rifles.

Gee, that's funny because my Bushy at least equals, if not outperforms, my husband's Colt any day. And it certainly isn't "better made."

I personally don't see where it's a big problem. No AR-15 type rifle you can buy today is really an AR-15. But we call them that just the same. So who cares if we call every 16", short handguarded, lightweight barreled AR-15 type firearm an M4? Just like we call all brands of facial tissue "Kleenex" or all boo-boo bandages "Band-Aids." They ain't, but try arguing that with your friend and see what kind of looks you get. Who cares?

 

[Thin Black Line]

So that's what Colt is up to instead of making better mousetraps. Shades of General Motors...

+1. Yep, what a complete waste of time and money that could have
been spent on R&D. This is why the next generation of small arms that
the military is looking into don't come from Colt --or Bushie.

 

[boing]

...the decision noted that more than a dozen firearm manufacturers other than Colt have used the term M4 for years to refer to military-style carbines with collapsible buttstocks and shortened barrels. Since the M4 term is generic, the court granted judgment for Bushmaster that Colt’s federal trademark registration for the M4 should be cancelled.

In other words, the term M4 has been made generic by so many other companies ripping off Colt's trademark for so long, so now it's OK to do so...?

 

[chrisTx]

In other words, the term M4 has been made generic by so many other companies ripping off Colt's trademark for so long, so now it's OK to do so...?

it's no different than the term 1911. how many M1911A1s are out there? had colt pulled that before, the troops in WWII would have been stuck without pistols. colt wants exclusive rights. how else are they going to stay in business? they don't have consumer support anymore.

i think colt is a sad, sad shadow of its former self. i used to own a lot of colt weapons and really liked them. i sold them to people willing to pay twice what i paid. given colt's position on most everything, i won't own another. a colt is only a prize to the ill-informed.

 

[pete f]

I am surprised with the MATCH TARGET dismissal, the would be like saying a python can be a hypoint, or a highway patrolman can be a uberti, that is a well documented and long standing Colt only trademark.



(i know Highway Patrolman is a S&W trademark, was using it as an example of a well known name instantly brings brand recognition.)

 

[antarti]

Just like we call all brands of facial tissue "Kleenex" or all boo-boo bandages "Band-Aids."

The problem is when some other company starts calling their tissues "Kleenex"... or their bandages "Band-Aids", or their cola's "Coke's".

I'm kind of suprised about the MATCH TARGET and the COMMANDO dismissals. M16 and M4 are military designations and AR-15 is the name of that style of rifle (which Colt did not invent), but the Colt Commando and the Colt Match Target were both names invented by Colt, not others.

+1

If somebody told me they were selling a "Commando" I would sure expect to see the Colt name on it, and would educate the seller (just before walking away) if I didn't.

Regardless of the Colt haters say, the Colt is better made weapon in a number of areas and this isn't up for debate, it is fact as you can see the differences in the rifles.

I'm not an AR fanatic, but the difference (primarily in small details, machining cleanup, fit-and-finish) seemed apparent to me when I was comparing a Colt with a number of very respected clones, Bushmaster included. Actually the LMT stuff came closest to the Colt IIRC. FWIW I could care less either way since I'll never own one (Bushmaster, LMT, or Colt) since I think they're all overpriced.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So Bushmaster won the first round. Do you really think there won't be an appeal? FN lost a suit against the Army and Colt over the M4 TDP. There is a good chance the Apellate Court will over turn this decision. Bushmaster may just be counting it's chickens before the eggs are laid.

Considering that there is a lot of case law where businesses in totally different fields have to change their names or product names, I really doubt that this case is over.

Well, I just read the 34 page redacted opinion from the judge. A lot of stuff was redacted, so I can only comment on the quality of arguments that weren't redacted; but Bushmaster won this on a motion for summary judgment. In a summary judgment the judge is supposed to interpret all disputed facts in the way they are most favorable to the non-movant (Colt). In his opinion, the judge went point-by-point through every fact disputed by Bushmaster and Colt, including really minor stuff and explained what facts he chose to use for his decision and why he allowed or disallowed certain facts.

The main case Colt appeared to be making in the redacted version is that people might confuse a Bushmaster product with the Colt product and that diluted the value of the Colt brand. Unfortunately for Colt, they couldn't produce any person who had such a complaint. The fact that Bushmaster and other companies had been using M4 and other terminology claimed by Colt since the early 1990s (and Colt was aware of it based on the documentation) but chose not to sue until recently didn't help Colt either.

I imagine Colt will appeal the decision; but based on my unprofessional opinion I think they would lose the appeal. The facts just aren't good for Colt and appeals courts typically do not review the facts established by the trial court. The most they could do was say that the trial court judge was wrong to grant the motion for summary judgment and remand it for trial; but I don't see that happening.

Just found a link to the redacted published opinion, it is 76 pages in PDF format; but here it is for those who are interested:
http://www.med.uscourts.gov/opinion...cv240_colt_v_bushmaster_affirmed_12062005.pdf

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

it is not 'fact' that colts are better than bushmasters nor is it 'fact' that it's better made. that would be an opinion.

It is a fact. Let's consider the following.


An M4 has, and should have, and buyers expect the following, all of which bushmaster does NOT have:

1] M4 feed ramps
2] Staked down castle nut on collapsing stock
3] Parkerizing under the gas block
4] Proper height front sight block (F-marked) to actually allow one to sight in the rifle properly with a flattop.
5] Magnetically tested and proof load fired Bolt and Barrel with a 77k psi 100gr load. Each and every bolt and barrel is done.
6] Properly staked gas key that will not come loose ever.
7] Enhanced extractor spring is standard
8] H-buffer
9] Double heat shields in handguards.
10] Handguards are made out of the non-melting real-deal material.
11] The receiver extension (buffer tube) is Mil-spec and the proper size to accept aftermarket type stocks like the VLTOR.
12] Colt has the real M16 carrier, that features a shrouded firing pin, and more metal at the rear.
13] 1/7 twist rates

There are probably a few other little things I've forgotten, but you get the idea.

colt's patent on the M4 prevents other suppliers from being able to supply the US military with M4 rifles.

This is simply not true. Anyone who can pass their tests can supply a weapon to them. The military doesn't care about names or trademarks.

bushmaster supplied M4s to the US military, primarily used by the 82nd airborne, in the gulf war, but colt threatened to sue the US government because they were buying 'illegal copies' of their rifles.

If you can, please provide a citation for that claim. It is HOTLY debated on other forums specific to the AR-15 that Bushmaster has never, ever provided arms to the US Military under contract.

In fact, there are long nasty threads that debunk the "gulf war" Bushmaster rifle story myth.


Maybe they are wrong, it's just that no one's ever provided a shred of evidence that Bushmaster ever provided weapons to our armed forces. Some believe it is a rumor/myth spread by Bushmasters marketing dept.

now, bushmaster will be able to contract with the US government to supply M4s; along with any other AR manufacturer. poor colt will have to start charging reasonable prices for their guns.

That's funny, because Colt's prices aren't really that much higher. LE prices for a real M4 over a Bushmaster fake is something like $150 more. Considering you get more for your money...I don't think Colt is at fault here.




Colt has a legitimate complaint. Bushmaster is riding on the fame and recognition (associated with reliability and being milspec) of the M4. When agencies buy something called an M4, they are expecting real M4 performance. Instead, they get loose gas keys and other totally unacceptable problems. No one but Colt offers a rifle with real M4 features...If you were in charge of a dept, you'd want to get yourself some real military grade hardware, not commercial copies. Well, a lot of these guys are not AR-15 guru's and just go along thinking that the configuration or likeness to an M4 makes for an M4. It does not for the reasons I listed above. The Colts outshine other AR's mainly when it comes time for full-auto and rapid fire. That's when an AR shows what its made of.

Gee, that's funny because my Bushy at least equals, if not outperforms, my husband's Colt any day. And it certainly isn't "better made."

I don't doubt that. But I doubt you're firing full auto either. It is better made, if it were not, believe me when I say it - the Government would be buying from Bushmaster too. I am not here to attack Bushmaster, they are a fine AR.

I haven't done any torture testing in my backyard, I can only go by what experts say. All the top-level carbine instructors across the country universally agree that the rifle that runs and keeps on running is the Colt. These are guys that run year round classes for the AR where each student fires 2,000 rounds in 3-5 days. They see what lasts, what doesn't, what breaks, what doesn't etc....They say the majority of clones have some type of breakage during a course.


They all unquestionably advocate Colt, and they aren't on Colt's payroll.

 

[HankB]

Regardless of the Colt haters say, the Colt is better made weapon in a number of areas and this isn't up for debate, it is fact

Few here have had the opportunity to test genuine "mil spec" versions of both Colt and Bushmaster rifles, simply because milspec M16 type rifles are machineguns and no post-86 machineguns are available in regular commercial channels.

So opinions are becessarily formed by evaluation of the rifles that are available. Features play an important role in perceived quality.

Features such as absence of a threaded muzzle, absence of a full-capacity magazine shipped with a new rifle, absence of a bayonet lug (for looks, if nothing else) and presence of a steel block in the lower to obstruct trigger work and the use of non-standard pins are all Colt negatives . . . as is the use of a plastic recoil buffer. And the 1/7 twist rate is - rightly - not viewed as a "plus."

Colt rifles I've seen are accurate and reliable.

Bushmasters are equally accurate and reliable.

Bushmaster's factory service is generally regarded as pretty good - Colt's factory service is best compared to a pile of steaming excrement. And it's for that reason I'll never own another Colt product.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This is simply not true. Anyone who can pass their tests can supply a weapon to them. The military doesn't care about names or trademarks.

Actually it is true. Colt developed the Technical Data Package for the M4 with its own funds and never licensed it to the Army. The Army assumed it had the rights to the TDP under the earlier agreement to produce M16s and gave the M4 TDP to FN. Colt sued the U.S. and part of the resulting settlement was that Colt would possess exclusive rights to provide the military with the M4 carbine until the patent expired.

If you can, please provide a citation for that claim. It is HOTLY debated on other forums specific to the AR-15 that Bushmaster has never, ever provided arms to the US Military under contract.

If you will click on the link to the opinion above, it references an uncontested fact that Bushmaster sold 65 M4 carbines to the Army in April 1990. It is also uncontested that Bushmaster currently sells AR15-style weapons including the M4 to the Department of Defense, State, Energy, and Interior (though I can't find any more reference to military sales despite the mention of current DoD contracts). Colt's lawyer did not contest either of the facts mentioned above and Bushmaster provided documents to support its claim in the legal battle.

In fact, there are long nasty threads that debunk the "gulf war" Bushmaster rifle story myth.

Guess we can now debunk the debunking.

Colt has a legitimate complaint. Bushmaster is riding on the fame and recognition (associated with reliability and being milspec) of the M4. When agencies buy something called an M4, they are expecting real M4 performance. Instead, they get loose gas keys and other totally unacceptable problems. No one but Colt offers a rifle with real M4 features...If you were in charge of a dept, you'd want to get yourself some real military grade hardware, not commercial copies. Well, a lot of these guys are not AR-15 guru's and just go along thinking that the configuration or likeness to an M4 makes for an M4. It does not for the reasons I listed above. The Colts outshine other AR's mainly when it comes time for full-auto and rapid fire. That's when an AR shows what its made of.

Colt apparently made some argument along those lines that was redacted in the above opinion. The court didn't buy it though. They noted that almost all of the agencies had trials before they purchased weapons and that individual officers were free to do research online or rely on the expertise of their FFLs to guide them. Personally, I think we all know the court took an unusually optimistic view of the situation here; but Colt was unable to convince the court that users would blame Colt for problems with rifles sold by Bushmaster and that was the crux of the argument.

The court's reasoning was basically that M4 was a generic term and Colt couldn't stop competition with their M4 product as long as people were able to distinguish between the M4 products offered by different companies and that big pony or snake on the side pretty well handled that. The burden on buying smart is still on the buyer.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Features such as absence of a threaded muzzle, absence of a full-capacity magazine shipped with a new rifle, absence of a bayonet lug (for looks, if nothing else) and presence of a steel block in the lower to obstruct trigger work and the use of non-standard pins are all Colt negatives . . . as is the use of a plastic recoil buffer. And the 1/7 twist rate is - rightly - not viewed as a "plus."

Mine came with a bayo lug, a threaded muzzle, a flash hider, 2 high capacity magazines....it does have the .170 pins instead of the .150, and the semi-auto's have the high-shelf receiver you're referring to. If you buy a select fire, it will not.

Neither of these so-called "negatives" impede function whatsoever. Poorly staked gas key will....


1/7 twist rate is a plus, I don't know why you'd think it isn't. A Bushmaster's 1/9 will not consistantly stabilize the 75-77gr loads that are the most effective .223's yet. You forfeit the ability to shoot the best loads available, unless you want to launch them as flying sawblades with a curved windage trajectory....

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

The burden on buying smart is still on the buyer.

Totally agreed, and on that argument, is truly the bottom line. But, Colt does make a good argument about LE's depending on others to know the difference between a Colt and a Bushmaster. It is interesting how that document even mentions Ar15.com.


Bushmaster's whopping 65 rifles isn't exactly a contract that allows them to ride the mil-spec quality reputation bandwagon in respect to their civilian rifles being sold all around to LE agencies. The military has never ordered mass quanity of rifles from Bushmaster. It is safe to assume that small quanity orders are hardly what people associate with large contracts. 65 rifles is nothing more than a trial batch. Since they didn't order from Bushmaster again, I guess we can assume they prefer the Colt. Wonder why? Price? Quality? Colt being in good with the Feds? IDK...


The military doesn't care about the M4 name...it was Colt bitching at the government because of the government going to others using that feature set as the "M4". The government wants a certain specification, a certain feature set. Names mean nothing to them.


I find it astounding how people are so adamantly against Colt, but will back Bushmaster. I attribute this to a "Colt hates civilians" bias that exists. I don't love either, I do know the differences though.


Bushmaster knows darn well that people will always favor and buy whatever the military uses or approves. It is like the EOtech vs. Aimpoint nonsense. When something is used by the mil, it usually means it is higher quality, or battle tough. It gains a reputation, and it gains a new status. It is a new symbol of quality. This can be a great aid for them and a selling point. Don't make it sound as though Bushmaster armed our soldiers in desert storm. That is a misconception and a myth.


I don't mind Bushmaster doing so, that's their business - not mine. However, they are trying to pass off rifles that are suppose to be as good as Colts. This is false. Colt claims this hurts their business. I think that is a valid argument. The court disagrees.


Right now, Bushmaster is a commercial AR. They ought to add the features, testing and quality necessary to claim they are as good as Colt. If they do, and can undercut Colt, chances are the Military would buy quantities from them.

The government really owns that design/features. Remember, Colt isn't a private company. They are partially owned by the government, and the way the govenrment subsidizes them- I don't believe they can do that, and the court ruled this way (court is the government after all)

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bushmaster's whopping 65 rifles isn't exactly a contract that allows them to ride the mil-spec quality reputation bandwagon in respect to their civilian rifles being sold all around to LE agencies.

Yeah, it isn't exactly impressive.

The military has never ordered mass quanity of rifles from Bushmaster. It is safe to assume that small quanity orders are hardly what people associate with large contracts. 65 rifles is nothing more than a trial batch. Since they didn't order from Bushmaster again, I guess we can assume they prefer the Colt. Wonder why? Price? Quality? Colt being in good with the Feds? IDK...

Well, after 1999, the Army couldn't buy M4s from Bushmaster even if it wanted to due to the settlement with Colt (by the way, there is an excellent discussion of this settlement here: http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/publications_article.cfm?rid=354.0). However, one purchase of 65 rifles over 9 years doesn't suggest the Army was bowled over by Bushmaster either.

I don't mind Bushmaster doing so, that's their business - not mine. However, they are trying to pass off rifles that are suppose to be as good as Colts. This is false. Colt claims this hurts their business. I think that is a valid argument. The court disagrees.

Actually, the court just said that Bushmaster claiming its rifles are every bit as good as Colt's is just doing business and is OK even if it hurts Colt's business. Colt only has a claim if Bushmaster is selling their product as a Colt's product or is selling a product that Colt's has exclusive rights to (for example, Bushmaster got nailed for selling double-heat shield handguards since Colt's has the patent on those). Colt has exclusive rights to the M4 Carbine TDP; but they do not have exclusive rights to the generic M4 name - which means Bushmaster can sell any rifle it wants under that name even if it isn't an M4 in any sense of the word. Since Bushmaster isn't using the M4 TDP, no issues there.

Also to be fair to Bushmaster, a plastic buffer is not milspec either and Colt uses them. Just because Colt is required to meet certain standards for the government, is no guarantee that they use the same care in rifles they deliver to the civilian market - likewise Bushmaster's contracts with DoD, State, etc. don't mean that you will get the same quality control those contracts get. I can say that most of the civilian Colts I've seen have excellent QC though and appear to benefit from the higher QC required by the military.

Right now, Bushmaster is a commercial AR. They ought to add the features, testing and quality necessary to claim they are as good as Colt. If they do, and can undercut Colt, chances are the Military would buy quantities from them.

Bushmaster would not only have to change their manufacturing and QC, they would need to spend more on K Street lobbyists as well before that would ever happen.

Remember, Colt isn't a private company. They are partially owned by the government, and the way the govenrment subsidizes them

Colt is a public company and IIRC something like 15% of the company is owned by the State of Connecticut's pension fund. I don't know that this constitutes partial ownership by the government or subsidy, though I am sure that like any other shareholder with 15% of the votes, the state has some influence on Colt's board of directors.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

This is a classic case of a government lapdog getting betrayed by their master.


Colt developed all of this with government money, then they want to monopolize it in the LE and civilian market.


It's a catch-22 for them. They COULD claim that it hurts their business if they really did own the M4 name. But how can you own a military designation? If they owned it, they could prevent others from using it, but can they prevent Bushmaster from using the same features? IIRC, a few small things of the M4 design are actually patented, like the double heat shields...


BTW, Bushmaster was given the TPD by the government, the one that Colt developed. IIRC, they agreed not to profit from this...which is messed up, because why would Bushmaster build a trial set of rifles for the military when their goal isn't to profit from a potential contract? Also remember, while Colt developed it, they did so while meeting or exceeding government specifications.


Government doesn't care. They are out for themselves. If you work with them to develop a design...they consider it theirs. Even if you don't they consider it theirs. They take liberty to take any innovation and allow anyone to build it for them IF they think they can save a buck. Trademarks, patents and all of that are only legitimate when fought between private entities, when up against the government, they act as if they are exempt. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.



I don't have a plastic buffer. A lot of these claims about Colt haven't been true in my limited experience. I like having an M16 carrier, I like having the better staking on the gas key, I like all the little things that add up. The workmanship and machining is also better. This may or may not equate to better performance.


There is a difference between a Colt product and a Bushmaster, but now the government doesn't think so, at least when a name is concerned in markets...How hypocritical of them, when they buy rifles - features and specs are very important.

Colt rifles do benefit from Colt being the builder of the military rifles. They save money giving you their mil-spec stuff and having just 1 line of production, rather than producing a seperate cheaper civilian line of parts.


Bushmaster, when supplying to the government might build something very different from what they make for civilians. Maybe so, but there is a wealth of testimony from LE's across the internet that the rifles they get issued are no different from civilian Bushmaster rifles. So far, I haven't seen a single example of a Bushmaster that is different because it is an LE rifle. This only comes into play if the Dept thought they were getting mil-spec rifles with features associated with the M4 rifles which established that reputation and level of quality. Buyer beware? guess so!!! But also shame on Bushmaster for mootching off of someone else's quality and reputation to make a buck. It's their right, and there's no law against that, but it is shameful. Especially when LE's lives are on the line. Police administrators need to get their head out of their butts and research what they buy more carefully.


People can say that Colt isn't mil-spec becuase it isn't full auto, or has the .170 pins...and then you get into one of those arguments of what IS mil-spec and what isn't. You get purists who believe milspec is only that which a USGI carries into battle. This is probably true. But I certainly don't mind having my materials and workmanship be mil-spec..while just having full auto parts missing and 2" of barrel more.



It is kind of idiotic of the Colt haters to jump on Colt for this. Colt is defending what IS a better rifle. How can people attack them for that IDK.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Regardless of the Colt haters say, the Colt is better made weapon in a number of areas and this isn't up for debate, it is fact as you can see the differences in the rifles.

Oh brother.......

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It's a catch-22 for them. They COULD claim that it hurts their business if they really did own the M4 name. But how can you own a military designation? If they owned it, they could prevent others from using it, but can they prevent Bushmaster from using the same features? IIRC, a few small things of the M4 design are actually patented, like the double heat shields...

Colt can prevent others from using patented features it uses on its own M4 carbine. It simply cannot prevent others from calling their rifle an AR15, Commando or M4 carbine, regardless of how close or how far it is from the Colt product.

BTW, Bushmaster was given the TPD by the government, the one that Colt developed. IIRC, they agreed not to profit from this...which is messed up, because why would Bushmaster build a trial set of rifles for the military when their goal isn't to profit from a potential contract?

What is your source for Bushmaster receiving the TDP from the government? There was no evidence of that mentioned in the recent trademark lawsuit despite a discussion of that issue and the law firm representing Colt in that negotiation with the government only mentions that FN received the TDP. They don't say anything about Bushmaster. In any case, I doubt the TDP of the M4 in 1990 was very different from that of the M16, so even if Bushmaster did get it, it probably wouldn't include most of the more recent upgrades to the weapon.

I don't have a plastic buffer. A lot of these claims about Colt haven't been true in my limited experience. I like having an M16 carrier, I like having the better staking on the gas key, I like all the little things that add up. The workmanship and machining is also better. This may or may not equate to better performance.

Colt does sell civilian rifles with plastic buffer as well as rifles with the bolt carrier unshrouded and the rear of the carrier cut away. My point is simply that the rifles Colt sells to us may not get the same quality control as those sold to the military.

There is a difference between a Colt product and a Bushmaster, but now the government doesn't think so, at least when a name is concerned in markets...How hypocritical of them, when they buy rifles - features and specs are very important.

Either you haven't read the opinion or you haven't understood it. Nowhere in there does the government say that there is no difference between a Colt and a Bushmaster product. The government simply says that M4 carbine or AR15 rifle is a generic term and that any firearms manufacturer can produce an AR15 or M4 carbine so long as they do not use Colt's patented improvements or market their rifle AS a Colt. Just like it is perfectly legal to build an M1 Garand that doesn't meet any government specifications (cast or reweld receiver, etc.) and sell it as an M1 rifle.

Also Colt might have had a better case for this if they had pursued it more aggressively when they first became aware of it in 1994. It doesn't look very good when your own documentation shows you knew about the problem since 1994 and did nothing to stop it until 2004. In most states, you can lose land you have title to over something like that, so I wouldn't be shocked to see the same principle applied to intellectual property.

Colt rifles do benefit from Colt being the builder of the military rifles. They save money giving you their mil-spec stuff and having just 1 line of production, rather than producing a seperate cheaper civilian line of parts.

Last time I looked, Colt did have a separate line of civilian parts including the aforementioned buffers, trigger guards, and bolt carriers as well as takedown pins and fire control group parts. I know the Colt LE6920 no longer uses many of the civilian parts but does this apply to the rest of Colt's rifles?

Police administrators need to get their head out of their butts and research what they buy more carefully.

I'd say that this goes for anyone plunking down almost $1k for a rifle.. Just like everything else in our great capitalist society, it is up to the consumer to do the research on products and decide what best fits their needs.

Edited to add - here is Bushmaster's motion for summary judgment and the results of the motion:

1. Bushmaster says its use of the term M4 predates that of Colt. - No judgment
2. The term M4 is generic. - Judge grants summary judgment - Granted summary judgment
3. Bushmaster's use of the term M4 constitutes a protected "fair use" of the term - No judgment
4. The is no likelihood of confusion among a commercially relevant group of consumers as to the source of Bushmaster's product - Granted summary judgment
5. Colt's M4 design does not qualify as "trade dress" (distinctive design meant to identify it with a particular brand and not functional) - Granted summary judgment
6. Colt slept on its rights entitling Bushmaster to use the M4 trademark - Bushmaster not entitled to summary judgment based on their claim
7. Colt cannot recover damages for its Lanham act claims because it does not have any actual evidence of customer confusion - Judge recommended issue go to trial; but agrees Colt cannot recover damages