Doesn't SAR's CM9 infringe on Kahr's CM9 ?

[C0untZer0]

I think Sarsilmaz was first announced at 2012 SHOT Show, but didn't begin exporting their CM9 to the U.S. until 2015 ? (I could be wrong). Kahr has had the CM9 since March 2011.

I'm not sure why we haven't heard of a lawsuit or a threatened lawsuit over this?

 

[rule303]

The two pistols have nothing in common other than being smallish 9mm's. The name is ambiguous enough to be considered generic I would think. I don't see that Kahr holds a trademark on the CM9 name, probably for that reason.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

The SAR CM9 is a CZ-75 clone, and it's visually obvious. There are no existing patents to infringe on. CZ couldn't even patent the original.

 

[hso]

Infringe on what?

As pointed out, there's no patent to infringe upon and the firearms are completely dissimilar. Were you thinking about trademark (no) or that Kahr had copyrighted " CM9"?

 

[Jim Watson]

I thought Kahr had a patent on the asymmetrical barrel lump and actually sued Colt for using one on the Pocket Nine.

 

[C0untZer0]

No I was talking about the name.

For instance, no one but Springfield Armory could make a gun call XD____ but they actually have it as a registered trademark: XD®

But still I find it hard to believe... basically any gun manufacturer could take all of Kahr's model names? PM9. MK9, CT9, CW9, K40, etc... ?

 

[Tirod]

Yeah, makers could appropriate names, just like they took the designation "1911." IIRC the Colt "Pocket 9" was shared by the Detonics "Pocket 9" of the 1980's. And there are quite a few "Single Action Army" pistols out there.

Do we even want to mention the name "AR15" and all its variations?

Search "CM9" and you mostly get Kahr pistols, with speakers, music, and computer software and hardware a distant second. Some pages down the Sars' CM9 gets a mention. I don't think that is going to change as it's been used so much in reviews, listings, and number of years on the net. Kahr has been on the market since before the internet, it remains to be seen if Sarsilmaz makes it on the American market that long. One shared product designation won't likely make or break things for either.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I think Sarsilmaz was first announced at 2012 SHOT Show, but didn't begin exporting their CM9 to the U.S. until 2015 ? (I could be wrong). Kahr has had the CM9 since March 2011.

I'm not sure why we haven't heard of a lawsuit or a threatened lawsuit over this?

In theory Kahr could have a protectable, copyright interest in the mark "CM9" as a name of a 9mm handgun. A trademark doesn't need to be registered to the protectable. It basically just needs to be used in commerce.

But a breach of trademark lawsuit can be a difficult and expensive proposition. Kahr could reasonably conclude that its business has not been adversely affected by Sarsilmaz' use of the name, so there would be no reason to invest the considerable time and expense necessary to protect it.