Ruger Suing Thompson Center over .22 Rifle

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not a patent infringement case, it a trade-dress case, Basically, Ruger is saying that the shape and appearance of the 10/22 are a 'trademark' and T/C's copy is too much of a copy.

Yes, there are some Rugers that are copies, the Blackhawk, the SR1911, and Mini 14 come to mind. A few things are different in these cases, 1) the 1911 was produced by many companies in the past, so trademark exclusivity is almost impossible to prove, 2) Colt's never bothered to sue anyone over the issue of copies of the Model 1873 Single Action Army Pistol, because the SAA was not a big part of their revenue, and there are quite a few visual differences between the initial Blackhawks and SAAs, and 3) the Mini 14 is actually not a very accurate copy of an M14, and in any case the design of the M14 is Government property.
Reminds me of those tools at Harley Davidson suing over other manufacturers' motorcycles making the same *sound* as a Harley.

Ruger.... Get over yourself! This is the kind of thing I'd have expected from that weenie Bill Ruger himself.


Todd.
 
How has volquartsen gotten away with it for so many years?

Volquartsen generally makes 10/22-compatible/format stuff that looks very different.

Don't get utility patent and trademark/tradedress mixed up. Utility patent is about how things work. Design patent is about how things look. Trademark/tradedress is about whether the consumer is going to buy product X and think they are buying product Y, or buying product X made by maker A when it's really made by maker B.

Volquartsen doesn't want anyone to think they are Ruger... they want higher price points.* So their stuff is generally pretty differentiated from Ruger stuff.

* Similarly, very few Volquartsen customers want to not have Volquarsten-branded/distinctive stuff. Can't flex on the poors if they think you're rocking factory Ruger.
 
Trade Dress, a distinguishing appearance feature of a product, is forever as long as it is continuously used. JEEP, for instance, has successfully sued to keep their 7 vertical slot grill to themselves. The iconic shape of a Coca-Cola bottle is also considered trade dress.
 
Trade Dress, a distinguishing appearance feature of a product, is forever as long as it is continuously used.
For a feature that's distinguishable enough it might be justified, but I can't really see what such a feature or set of them might be in 10/22. On that basis Marlin would be able to sue Ruger for its similarities in overall appearance and details to Model 60, which would - of course - be equally ridiculous.
 
Reminds me of those tools at Harley Davidson suing over other manufacturers' motorcycles making the same *sound* as a Harley.

Ruger.... Get over yourself! This is the kind of thing I'd have expected from that weenie Bill Ruger himself.


Todd.

Ducati and Harley Davidson both sought trademark protection for the exhaust sound of their distinctive engines (V-twin Desmodronic, and Common Crankpin V-twin respectively) in the 1990s. By the early 2000s, both efforts had failed.

IP is IP. If the company doesn't demonstrate a vigilance in protecting its IP, it may have difficulty defending more blatant infringements in other cases and management may face unpleasant challenges from shareholders. The 10/22 represents a major brand for Ruger and management have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to pursue any and all legal means to defend the value of that brand.
 
How has volquartsen gotten away with it for so many years? Or Pac-lite? Why this now? Is Ruger trying to recoup some of their legal fees from being sued by Glock over the Sigma?

Sigma was a Smith and Wesson pistol, not a Ruger.

Does this mean that Kel-Tec will be suing Ruger over the LCP?

IIRC, KelTec does not patent their firearms.
 
Last edited:
For a feature that's distinguishable enough it might be justified, but I can't really see what such a feature or set of them might be in 10/22. On that basis Marlin would be able to sue Ruger for its similarities in overall appearance and details to Model 60, which would - of course - be equally ridiculous.
You should read the complaint. Ruger's lawyers listed about 75 to 100 non-functional things on the TCR/22 that are exactly the same, or very similar.
 
You should read the complaint. Ruger's lawyers listed about 75 to 100 non-functional things on the TCR/22 that are exactly the same, or very similar.
If you didn't notice, I replied on a general level to Speedo66's post about trade dress. On the other hand, the whole lawsuit is still completely ridiculous from Ruger's part. Had someone duplicated PC9 they might have been onto something, but adopting features from a 55 year old design? Gimme a break, that's just stupid, Ruger.
 
I remember the AMT Lightning 25/22. I wanted it badly but they obviously didn't make it anymore. So I bought the exact same stock and magazine and put it on my 10/22.

Ruger has to sue over this, if not they aren't protecting their properties
 
Should have made it in .22 MAG, Ruger stopped making them a while ago. I would be in for one of those.:D While it is a close design there are some differences. How many ways can you make a semiautomatic/bolt .22 rifle that are NOT similar to all the rest out there. Ruger copied the rotary mag that savage used years previous. Suppose that is what their problem is?

Im not sure Ruger ever really worked the buggs out of the 10/22Mag
I had a coworker that had one.
It was neat, but when the rubber hit the highway (hunting) it often failed to feed when the chips were down.

The Savage A-22 mag uses a delayed blowback design that makes sense.
Keltec CMR-30 just dont make the grade as a heavy rimfire hunting rifle.
Cz model 611 and 512 in .22 mag (parts n mags cost big $$$)
H&K model 300 is another if your rich enuf to buy one(mags cost big $$$)
H&R model 700 if you can find one.
The attractive feature of Ruger was the cheaper cost of parts.
 
Yes we already established that I’m a moron. Guess I need to edit my post

No you don't is a good example of everyone copying everyone else.

Glock sued SW over the Sigma and won a lot of money.
Ruger copied KT but someone posted KT didn't patent it. I don't know. How may ARs, AKs, 1911's are out there,

Maybe HK should have sued Glock and then they all sue everyone over "polymer" framed guns:what:
Imagine if we could buy guns from China and Japan, how many knockoffs would there be????????????????
Turkey sure makes a lot of them.
The most copied gun ever is the CZ 75
 
Jeep sued over the 7? slot grill and won.

Of course, the 7-slot grill is totally arbitrary. 6 slots or 8 slots work just as well. "Arbitrary" or "fanciful" designs get more protection under trademark law because it is assumed that consumers are more likely to take them as just being a "signature" of some sort. Purely functional/descriptive elements get much less protection. The Ruger 10/22 has a pretty darn generic/functionally minimalist look; it's just consistent with basic, conventional long-gun ergonomics/human factors.

I haven't read the pleadings here and am not opinion on the quality of the claims, but my initial reaction remains - I think there's virtually no chance of actual confusion by the relevant consumers here, and that's going to be (if T/C has good lawyers) a challenge.
 
Im not sure Ruger ever really worked the buggs out of the 10/22Mag
I had a coworker that had one.
It was neat, but when the rubber hit the highway (hunting) it often failed to feed when the chips were down.

The Savage A-22 mag uses a delayed blowback design that makes sense.
Keltec CMR-30 just dont make the grade as a heavy rimfire hunting rifle.
Cz model 611 and 512 in .22 mag (parts n mags cost big $$$)
H&K model 300 is another if your rich enuf to buy one(mags cost big $$$)
H&R model 700 if you can find one.
The attractive feature of Ruger was the cheaper cost of parts.

It’s good that Magnum Research still makes a 10/22 Mag copy as well as a standard 10/22 copy. (Just not as much of a copy apparently) They are still relatively affordable from them. Not so much from Volquartsen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top