Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
- Thread starter RWSGunsmithing
- Start date
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is so BS. I love Armalite Rifles but what next? Ford going to put a trademark on the term "truck"???
Does spelling out ten really infringes the trademark? I wonder what court would think so?
How about AR-Zehn??? Don't tell me Armalite trademarked the German Language too? </div></div>
That is a interesting thing to wonder about. However here in the real world where competent business practices attorneys charge $300-500/hour it would likely cost north of 100k to find out the answer to your question.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is so BS. I love Armalite Rifles but what next? Ford going to put a trademark on the term "truck"???
Does spelling out ten really infringes the trademark? I wonder what court would think so?
How about AR-Zehn??? Don't tell me Armalite trademarked the German Language too? </div></div>
That is a interesting thing to wonder about. However here in the real world where competent business practices attorneys charge $300-500/hour it would likely cost north of 100k to find out the answer to your question.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Randoman5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
Someone is bound to make Armalite put their money where their mouth is on this and I guess we'll see what you can and can't use in your semi-automatic rifle name then.</div></div>
The scary situation with that is what if Remington buys a small builder and is laying in wait for Armalite? </div></div>
Remington uses the name "R-25" for their .308-size rifles and "R-15" for their .223-size rifles. I believe they are playing off Knight's "SR-25" and Colt's "AR-15" trademarks. Which in all reality, its more accurate to call most of the .308 semi-auto "AR" rifles "SR-25s" as they run Knight-style magazines as opposed to Armalite AR-10 magazines.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Randoman5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
Someone is bound to make Armalite put their money where their mouth is on this and I guess we'll see what you can and can't use in your semi-automatic rifle name then.</div></div>
The scary situation with that is what if Remington buys a small builder and is laying in wait for Armalite? </div></div>
Remington uses the name "R-25" for their .308-size rifles and "R-15" for their .223-size rifles. I believe they are playing off Knight's "SR-25" and Colt's "AR-15" trademarks. Which in all reality, its more accurate to call most of the .308 semi-auto "AR" rifles "SR-25s" as they run Knight-style magazines as opposed to Armalite AR-10 magazines.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hlee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had an entirely different reply ready to go, but this sums it up much better...
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hlee</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">You are wrong.</span> AR-10 is a registered trademark. Kleenex is a registered trademark. Q-tip is a registered trademark. Band-Aid is a registered trademark. They all enjoy the same legal protection. Only the legal owner of a trademark can mark their products with the trademark. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hlee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had an entirely different reply ready to go, but this sums it up much better...
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hlee</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">You are wrong.</span> AR-10 is a registered trademark. Kleenex is a registered trademark. Q-tip is a registered trademark. Band-Aid is a registered trademark. They all enjoy the same legal protection. Only the legal owner of a trademark can mark their products with the trademark. </div></div>
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhnmdahl</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But saying that other's can't use it when it's public domain is wrong.</div></div>
That's the whole point - AR-10 is not in the public domain, but is something they came up with and trademarked to identify their unique product. You can call your facial tissues Kleenex all you want, but you can't sell them that way unless you're the one who invented and trademarked the term.
John</div></div>
It's really more like Kleenex calling 'facial tissues' their own brand name coinage. The same reason the '1911' or M1 rifle isn't trademarked, the <span style="text-decoration: underline">Department of Defense named it</span>. They named the AR-10 and all the other rifles submitted during that competition. It's under the same reasoning you can name any round on an AR-15 platform. Colt doesn't own The trademark on AR-15's the Government does. Therefore it is public domain. Seeing as how the AR-10 and the AR-15 were produced by the same person/company doing a government research program, it is the Government that owns the trademark rights to that particular product. And it <span style="color: #3333FF">added: AR-10</span> was named in 1956 and produced as such by a Dutch company, Artillerie Inrichtingen, until 1960. Colt, was given the rights to produce the AR-15 by the Government because, the 'government at that time' felt that Colt could produce the rifles and Fairchild/Armalite could not. In the end, Colt had to allow other makers to help them complete their contracts anyhow. But, that's another story.
And the "10"? Well I guess they will have to tell Savage to quit calling their bolt action rifles model 10's too?
Bottom line here, AR-10 was a designation given to the rifle by the U.S. Government. You can't go back and say that people can't use common terms because you waited until 2002 to "trademark" the term. I'd like to see Armalite succeed. But, this is wasteful big business greed like we always see it. Colt and Armalite would like everyone to believe they own the trademarks but they don't.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhnmdahl</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But saying that other's can't use it when it's public domain is wrong.</div></div>
That's the whole point - AR-10 is not in the public domain, but is something they came up with and trademarked to identify their unique product. You can call your facial tissues Kleenex all you want, but you can't sell them that way unless you're the one who invented and trademarked the term.
John</div></div>
It's really more like Kleenex calling 'facial tissues' their own brand name coinage. The same reason the '1911' or M1 rifle isn't trademarked, the <span style="text-decoration: underline">Department of Defense named it</span>. They named the AR-10 and all the other rifles submitted during that competition. It's under the same reasoning you can name any round on an AR-15 platform. Colt doesn't own The trademark on AR-15's the Government does. Therefore it is public domain. Seeing as how the AR-10 and the AR-15 were produced by the same person/company doing a government research program, it is the Government that owns the trademark rights to that particular product. And it <span style="color: #3333FF">added: AR-10</span> was named in 1956 and produced as such by a Dutch company, Artillerie Inrichtingen, until 1960. Colt, was given the rights to produce the AR-15 by the Government because, the 'government at that time' felt that Colt could produce the rifles and Fairchild/Armalite could not. In the end, Colt had to allow other makers to help them complete their contracts anyhow. But, that's another story.
And the "10"? Well I guess they will have to tell Savage to quit calling their bolt action rifles model 10's too?
Bottom line here, AR-10 was a designation given to the rifle by the U.S. Government. You can't go back and say that people can't use common terms because you waited until 2002 to "trademark" the term. I'd like to see Armalite succeed. But, this is wasteful big business greed like we always see it. Colt and Armalite would like everyone to believe they own the trademarks but they don't.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
Pretty sure Colt is the only company that can legally call theirs an "AR15" as they BOUGHT the rights from Armalite.
The US government uses the designation "AR15"? Pretty sure they only use M16(A1,A2) and M4(A1).
Pretty sure Colt is the only company that can legally call theirs an "AR15" as they BOUGHT the rights from Armalite.
The US government uses the designation "AR15"? Pretty sure they only use M16(A1,A2) and M4(A1).
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pretty sure Colt is the only company that can legally call theirs an "AR15" as they BOUGHT the rights from Armalite.
The US government uses the designation "AR15"? Pretty sure they only use M16(A1,A2) and M4(A1). </div></div>
Colt was GIVEN (<span style="font-style: italic">on a silver platter, I might add</span>) the rights to produce it, which entailed patent rights. Armalite had to go back to the Government and show that typically if a prototype goes on to production, the company making the prototype got a royalty. Armalite had to settle for a one time pittance of what Colt got from the deal. This is where we differentiate between a patent and a trademark. When the patent ran out, laughtly daughty and everybody started producing and marketing <span style="text-decoration: underline">AR-15</span> parts. They had the rights to the patent, AR-15 was the original name the Air Force used before the Army bought them and called them the M16 rifle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pretty sure Colt is the only company that can legally call theirs an "AR15" as they BOUGHT the rights from Armalite.
The US government uses the designation "AR15"? Pretty sure they only use M16(A1,A2) and M4(A1). </div></div>
Colt was GIVEN (<span style="font-style: italic">on a silver platter, I might add</span>) the rights to produce it, which entailed patent rights. Armalite had to go back to the Government and show that typically if a prototype goes on to production, the company making the prototype got a royalty. Armalite had to settle for a one time pittance of what Colt got from the deal. This is where we differentiate between a patent and a trademark. When the patent ran out, laughtly daughty and everybody started producing and marketing <span style="text-decoration: underline">AR-15</span> parts. They had the rights to the patent, AR-15 was the original name the Air Force used before the Army bought them and called them the M16 rifle.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
Odd, even Wiki says Colt bought it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
Why is COLT the only company that can and does stamp AR-15 on the side?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Summary
The XM16E1 is seen here fitted with an AN/PVS-2 night vision scope.
ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-15 to Colt in 1959.[17] The AR-15 was first adopted in 1962 by the United States Air Force, ultimately receiving the designation M16. The U.S. Army began to field the XM16E1 en masse in 1965 with most of them going to the Republic of Vietnam, and the newly organized and experimental Airmobile Divisions, the 1st Air Cavalry Division in particular. The U.S. Marine Corps in South Vietnam also experimented with the M16 rifle in combat during this period. The XM16E1 was standardized as the M16A1 in 1967. This version remained the primary infantry rifle of U.S. forces in South Vietnam until the end of the war in 1973, and remained with all U.S. military ground forces after it had replaced the M14 service rifle in 1970 in CONUS, Europe (Germany), and South Korea; when it was supplemented by the M16A2. During the early 1980s a roughly standardized load for this ammunition was adopted throughout NATO (see: 5.56×45mm NATO).
The M16A3 is a fully automatic variant of the M16A2, issued within the United States Navy. The M16A2 is currently being supplemented by the M16A4, which incorporates the flattop receiver unit developed for the M4 carbine, and Picatinny rail system. M16A2s are still in stock with the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, but are used primarily by reserve and National Guard units as well as by the U.S. Air Force.[citation needed]
The M16 rifle design, including variant or modified version of it such as the Armalite/Colt AR-15 series, AAI M15 rifle; AP74; EAC J-15; SGW XM15A; any 22-caliber rimfire variant, including the Mitchell M16A-1/22, Mitchell M16/22, Mitchell CAR-15/22, and AP74 Auto Rifle, is a prohibited and restricted weapon in Canada.[18]
The first issues of the rifle generated considerable controversy because the gun suffered from a jamming flaw known as “failure to extract,” which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle.[19] According to a congressional report, the jamming was caused primarily by a change in gunpowder which was done without adequate testing and reflected a decision for which the safety of soldiers was a secondary consideration.[20] Due to the issue, reports of soldiers being wounded were directly linked to the M16, which many soldiers felt was unreliable compared to its precursor, the M14, which used stick powder, varying from the M16's utilization of ball powder.</div></div>
Odd, even Wiki says Colt bought it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
Why is COLT the only company that can and does stamp AR-15 on the side?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Summary
The XM16E1 is seen here fitted with an AN/PVS-2 night vision scope.
ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-15 to Colt in 1959.[17] The AR-15 was first adopted in 1962 by the United States Air Force, ultimately receiving the designation M16. The U.S. Army began to field the XM16E1 en masse in 1965 with most of them going to the Republic of Vietnam, and the newly organized and experimental Airmobile Divisions, the 1st Air Cavalry Division in particular. The U.S. Marine Corps in South Vietnam also experimented with the M16 rifle in combat during this period. The XM16E1 was standardized as the M16A1 in 1967. This version remained the primary infantry rifle of U.S. forces in South Vietnam until the end of the war in 1973, and remained with all U.S. military ground forces after it had replaced the M14 service rifle in 1970 in CONUS, Europe (Germany), and South Korea; when it was supplemented by the M16A2. During the early 1980s a roughly standardized load for this ammunition was adopted throughout NATO (see: 5.56×45mm NATO).
The M16A3 is a fully automatic variant of the M16A2, issued within the United States Navy. The M16A2 is currently being supplemented by the M16A4, which incorporates the flattop receiver unit developed for the M4 carbine, and Picatinny rail system. M16A2s are still in stock with the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, but are used primarily by reserve and National Guard units as well as by the U.S. Air Force.[citation needed]
The M16 rifle design, including variant or modified version of it such as the Armalite/Colt AR-15 series, AAI M15 rifle; AP74; EAC J-15; SGW XM15A; any 22-caliber rimfire variant, including the Mitchell M16A-1/22, Mitchell M16/22, Mitchell CAR-15/22, and AP74 Auto Rifle, is a prohibited and restricted weapon in Canada.[18]
The first issues of the rifle generated considerable controversy because the gun suffered from a jamming flaw known as “failure to extract,” which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle.[19] According to a congressional report, the jamming was caused primarily by a change in gunpowder which was done without adequate testing and reflected a decision for which the safety of soldiers was a secondary consideration.[20] Due to the issue, reports of soldiers being wounded were directly linked to the M16, which many soldiers felt was unreliable compared to its precursor, the M14, which used stick powder, varying from the M16's utilization of ball powder.</div></div>
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Odd, even Wiki says Colt bought it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
Why is COLT the only company that can and does stamp AR-15 on the side?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> wiki, blah, blah, blah...</div></div>
</div></div>
You might want to dig a little deeper into how that actually unfolded. <span style="color: #3333FF">i.e. read the book, ...and between the lines.</span> Why would Armalite just up and give up a rifle they brought from prototype to production? A rifle that was pretty much already guaranteed some form of gov't contract for production no less, as it was meant to replace the M1 carbine. Trust me it was some very dirty politics that got Colt the contract. It's not just called 'Black Rifle' because of it's original color.
And, FWIW, I have owned lowers that were not Colt that said AR-15 on them. I did not research to see if they were licensed, though.
In fact if there were one AR-15 maker I wouldn't own, it would be Colt. Specifically for the reason noted.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Odd, even Wiki says Colt bought it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
Why is COLT the only company that can and does stamp AR-15 on the side?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> wiki, blah, blah, blah...</div></div>
</div></div>
You might want to dig a little deeper into how that actually unfolded. <span style="color: #3333FF">i.e. read the book, ...and between the lines.</span> Why would Armalite just up and give up a rifle they brought from prototype to production? A rifle that was pretty much already guaranteed some form of gov't contract for production no less, as it was meant to replace the M1 carbine. Trust me it was some very dirty politics that got Colt the contract. It's not just called 'Black Rifle' because of it's original color.
And, FWIW, I have owned lowers that were not Colt that said AR-15 on them. I did not research to see if they were licensed, though.
In fact if there were one AR-15 maker I wouldn't own, it would be Colt. Specifically for the reason noted.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10??????
Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10??????
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
I might be wrong about this, but I believe the AR-10 was developed first, then scaled down into the AR-15.
I might be wrong about this, but I believe the AR-10 was developed first, then scaled down into the AR-15.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Odd, even Wiki says Colt bought it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
Why is COLT the only company that can and does stamp AR-15 on the side?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> wiki, blah, blah, blah...</div></div>
</div></div>
You might want to dig a little deeper into how that actually unfolded. <span style="color: #3333FF">i.e. read the book, ...and between the lines.</span> Why would Armalite just up and give up a rifle they brought from prototype to production? A rifle that was pretty much already guaranteed some form of gov't contract for production no less, as it was meant to replace the M1 carbine. Trust me it was some very dirty politics that got Colt the contract. It's not just called 'Black Rifle' because of it's original color.
And, FWIW, I have owned lowers that were not Colt that said AR-15 on them. I did not research to see if they were licensed, though.
In fact if there were one AR-15 maker I wouldn't own, it would be Colt. Specifically for the reason noted. </div></div>
Complain about wiki, but the info is easily verifiable from other sources. So let's see something concrete rather than tinfoil hat stuff. If you have primary info, post the source. Either way, no matter what happened, Colt owns the designation "AR-15" and they are the only manufacturer legally using the name as far as I can tell.
So you hate on Colt and would own any other AR-15 specifically for this reason, yet don't have any actual info that is verified? You do realize most of the AR clones on the market have lower quality standards than Colt, right? So you'd buy an inferior product based solely on speculation of 1950s politics? So you feel that Colt somehow treated the aircraft company unfairly and bullied them and now won't buy their rifle over the inferior rifles of the competition 50 years later?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Odd, even Wiki says Colt bought it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
Why is COLT the only company that can and does stamp AR-15 on the side?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> wiki, blah, blah, blah...</div></div>
</div></div>
You might want to dig a little deeper into how that actually unfolded. <span style="color: #3333FF">i.e. read the book, ...and between the lines.</span> Why would Armalite just up and give up a rifle they brought from prototype to production? A rifle that was pretty much already guaranteed some form of gov't contract for production no less, as it was meant to replace the M1 carbine. Trust me it was some very dirty politics that got Colt the contract. It's not just called 'Black Rifle' because of it's original color.
And, FWIW, I have owned lowers that were not Colt that said AR-15 on them. I did not research to see if they were licensed, though.
In fact if there were one AR-15 maker I wouldn't own, it would be Colt. Specifically for the reason noted. </div></div>
Complain about wiki, but the info is easily verifiable from other sources. So let's see something concrete rather than tinfoil hat stuff. If you have primary info, post the source. Either way, no matter what happened, Colt owns the designation "AR-15" and they are the only manufacturer legally using the name as far as I can tell.
So you hate on Colt and would own any other AR-15 specifically for this reason, yet don't have any actual info that is verified? You do realize most of the AR clones on the market have lower quality standards than Colt, right? So you'd buy an inferior product based solely on speculation of 1950s politics? So you feel that Colt somehow treated the aircraft company unfairly and bullied them and now won't buy their rifle over the inferior rifles of the competition 50 years later?
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A10XRIFLE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10?????? </div></div>
okie
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A10XRIFLE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10?????? </div></div>
okie
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
Colt owns "AR-15."
Go to the Armalite site and they market an "M-15."
Colt owns "AR-15."
Go to the Armalite site and they market an "M-15."
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
tylerw02,
Where do you get the idea that Colt is the "King" of quality? They have ALWAYS BEEN, the "KING of Marketing". Samuel Colt was always in with some Congressman or Senator, even president, whilst hobnobbing to get his wares sold. He was smart enough to see a deal when it presented itself and was forever decorating his firearms to the delight of his 'buyers' in high Government offices. Point in fact, my favorite chance to shoot Colt in the A$$, Schofields were the much preferred revolvers in the wild-west days. That and Remington 1858/1860 Army's. Yet, advertising today always tells us Colt was the best. Colt got the 1911 contract because they already had the revolver contract. But, when it came down to brass tacks, they couldn't produce so they had to let Remington and other companies help them make the numbers needed for WWI. Same as with WWII. Anything Colt is pretty much a showpiece.
You want Quality and production back in that day? Winchester, Remington, (in spite of the 1903 debacle) and Savage. They produced a lot more guns that still work today than Colt.
FWIW, I carried a GM M16A1 most of my years in the 1st Ranger BN I shot a lot of 'perfect' scores with it. And I know of many Colt shooters who were good, who didn't. Put 'em behind a better rifle and they did.
Getting back to the subject, Military nomenclatures are Gov't owned, therefore public domain. Not able to be trademarked. So, IMO, does the CURRENT Armalite company deserve sole rights to the title AR-10, No. Neither does Colt own sole rights to AR-15. They are Gov't, therefore public domain.
A different case is Springfield, who labeled their civilian, semiautomatic version of the M-14 rifle, the M1A. No military designation there. I'll go completely with Springfield on M1A being theirs. But, not Colt on the AR-15 or Armalite on the AR-10.
tylerw02,
Where do you get the idea that Colt is the "King" of quality? They have ALWAYS BEEN, the "KING of Marketing". Samuel Colt was always in with some Congressman or Senator, even president, whilst hobnobbing to get his wares sold. He was smart enough to see a deal when it presented itself and was forever decorating his firearms to the delight of his 'buyers' in high Government offices. Point in fact, my favorite chance to shoot Colt in the A$$, Schofields were the much preferred revolvers in the wild-west days. That and Remington 1858/1860 Army's. Yet, advertising today always tells us Colt was the best. Colt got the 1911 contract because they already had the revolver contract. But, when it came down to brass tacks, they couldn't produce so they had to let Remington and other companies help them make the numbers needed for WWI. Same as with WWII. Anything Colt is pretty much a showpiece.
You want Quality and production back in that day? Winchester, Remington, (in spite of the 1903 debacle) and Savage. They produced a lot more guns that still work today than Colt.
FWIW, I carried a GM M16A1 most of my years in the 1st Ranger BN I shot a lot of 'perfect' scores with it. And I know of many Colt shooters who were good, who didn't. Put 'em behind a better rifle and they did.
Getting back to the subject, Military nomenclatures are Gov't owned, therefore public domain. Not able to be trademarked. So, IMO, does the CURRENT Armalite company deserve sole rights to the title AR-10, No. Neither does Colt own sole rights to AR-15. They are Gov't, therefore public domain.
A different case is Springfield, who labeled their civilian, semiautomatic version of the M-14 rifle, the M1A. No military designation there. I'll go completely with Springfield on M1A being theirs. But, not Colt on the AR-15 or Armalite on the AR-10.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A10XRIFLE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10?????? </div></div>
Prototypes or production?
The AR-10 chambered in .30M2 (7.62X63) was the first to be prototyped.
It's very important to note that the current Armalite shares NOTHING with the Hollywood company except its name.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A10XRIFLE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10?????? </div></div>
Prototypes or production?
The AR-10 chambered in .30M2 (7.62X63) was the first to be prototyped.
It's very important to note that the current Armalite shares NOTHING with the Hollywood company except its name.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A10XRIFLE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10?????? </div></div>
Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! Neither... Because Roosters don't lay eggs!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A10XRIFLE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10?????? </div></div>
Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! Neither... Because Roosters don't lay eggs!
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
Personally I think the notion that the "10" needs protection is a stretch of the imagination at best. From a purely a branding perspective it's not the "10 that people are buying any more than someone is buying the "dash" between the letters and numbers.
Expending capital to seek enforcement for something so trivial without being able attribute a financial loss to it is well...a waste of resources. If they'd put that money and effort into marketing, or R&D to produce a better product than their competitors, the payback would be greater.
Personally I think the notion that the "10" needs protection is a stretch of the imagination at best. From a purely a branding perspective it's not the "10 that people are buying any more than someone is buying the "dash" between the letters and numbers.
Expending capital to seek enforcement for something so trivial without being able attribute a financial loss to it is well...a waste of resources. If they'd put that money and effort into marketing, or R&D to produce a better product than their competitors, the payback would be greater.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A10XRIFLE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10?????? </div></div>
AR-10
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A10XRIFLE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10?????? </div></div>
AR-10
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
Maybe this has been mentioned because I didn't read the whole thread:
They've been doing this for several years now. The first I heard of it was with Iron Ridge Arms. They made billet receiver sets called the IRA-10 and were forced by armalite to change it. They are now called IRA-X
This article is from April 2010 and it calls out the IRA-X (formerly IRA-10). So its been at least 2 years they've been doing this.
http://www.defensereview.com/iron-ridge-...r-riflecarbine/
I'm sure that the reasoning for this goes back to the 60s 70s and the original AR10 design. Few people know (but I'm sure most here do) that the AR in AR15 stands for Armalite. So maybe by not patenting the name everyone can sell ar15's with no recognition or royalties to the company that created the rifle.
http://www.armalite.com/images/Library/History.pdf
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Early Colt AR-15s, their magazines, and their operator’s manuals were marked with
ArmaLite’s name. Colt’s retained the AR-15 designation on commercial rifles. To this day Colt’s has a model designation with the letters AR, which stands for “ArmaLite”</div></div>
Why aren't they complaining about the AR would be my question. Maybe because its such a common use term in the AR industry...there I just said it. Patenting the "AR" would be like someone mentioned above patenting the word "truck". So they're trying to get a lock on the model number, the "10". Another car analogy, Toyota making a car called the "Taurus." That's pretty obvious what its ripping off, it just seems silly to us because Armalite is trying to patent or hold on to their branding with the number 10.
Maybe this has been mentioned because I didn't read the whole thread:
They've been doing this for several years now. The first I heard of it was with Iron Ridge Arms. They made billet receiver sets called the IRA-10 and were forced by armalite to change it. They are now called IRA-X
This article is from April 2010 and it calls out the IRA-X (formerly IRA-10). So its been at least 2 years they've been doing this.
http://www.defensereview.com/iron-ridge-...r-riflecarbine/
I'm sure that the reasoning for this goes back to the 60s 70s and the original AR10 design. Few people know (but I'm sure most here do) that the AR in AR15 stands for Armalite. So maybe by not patenting the name everyone can sell ar15's with no recognition or royalties to the company that created the rifle.
http://www.armalite.com/images/Library/History.pdf
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Early Colt AR-15s, their magazines, and their operator’s manuals were marked with
ArmaLite’s name. Colt’s retained the AR-15 designation on commercial rifles. To this day Colt’s has a model designation with the letters AR, which stands for “ArmaLite”</div></div>
Why aren't they complaining about the AR would be my question. Maybe because its such a common use term in the AR industry...there I just said it. Patenting the "AR" would be like someone mentioned above patenting the word "truck". So they're trying to get a lock on the model number, the "10". Another car analogy, Toyota making a car called the "Taurus." That's pretty obvious what its ripping off, it just seems silly to us because Armalite is trying to patent or hold on to their branding with the number 10.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">tylerw02,
Where do you get the idea that Colt is the "King" of quality? They have ALWAYS BEEN, the "KING of Marketing". Samuel Colt was always in with some Congressman or Senator, even president, whilst hobnobbing to get his wares sold. He was smart enough to see a deal when it presented itself and was forever decorating his firearms to the delight of his 'buyers' in high Government offices. Point in fact, my favorite chance to shoot Colt in the A$$, Schofields were the much preferred revolvers in the wild-west days. That and Remington 1858/1860 Army's. Yet, advertising today always tells us Colt was the best. Colt got the 1911 contract because they already had the revolver contract. But, when it came down to brass tacks, they couldn't produce so they had to let Remington and other companies help them make the numbers needed for WWI. Same as with WWII. Anything Colt is pretty much a showpiece.
You want Quality and production back in that day? Winchester, Remington, (in spite of the 1903 debacle) and Savage. They produced a lot more guns that still work today than Colt.
FWIW, I carried a GM M16A1 most of my years in the 1st Ranger BN I shot a lot of 'perfect' scores with it. And I know of many Colt shooters who were good, who didn't. Put 'em behind a better rifle and they did.
Getting back to the subject, Military nomenclatures are Gov't owned, therefore public domain. Not able to be trademarked. So, IMO, does the CURRENT Armalite company deserve sole rights to the title AR-10, No. Neither does Colt own sole rights to AR-15. They are Gov't, therefore public domain.
A different case is Springfield, who labeled their civilian, semiautomatic version of the M-14 rifle, the M1A. No military designation there. I'll go completely with Springfield on M1A being theirs. But, not Colt on the AR-15 or Armalite on the AR-10. </div></div>
You question the quality of Colt AR-15s vs many of the clones? This demonstrate you have no clue what you're talking about.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">tylerw02,
Where do you get the idea that Colt is the "King" of quality? They have ALWAYS BEEN, the "KING of Marketing". Samuel Colt was always in with some Congressman or Senator, even president, whilst hobnobbing to get his wares sold. He was smart enough to see a deal when it presented itself and was forever decorating his firearms to the delight of his 'buyers' in high Government offices. Point in fact, my favorite chance to shoot Colt in the A$$, Schofields were the much preferred revolvers in the wild-west days. That and Remington 1858/1860 Army's. Yet, advertising today always tells us Colt was the best. Colt got the 1911 contract because they already had the revolver contract. But, when it came down to brass tacks, they couldn't produce so they had to let Remington and other companies help them make the numbers needed for WWI. Same as with WWII. Anything Colt is pretty much a showpiece.
You want Quality and production back in that day? Winchester, Remington, (in spite of the 1903 debacle) and Savage. They produced a lot more guns that still work today than Colt.
FWIW, I carried a GM M16A1 most of my years in the 1st Ranger BN I shot a lot of 'perfect' scores with it. And I know of many Colt shooters who were good, who didn't. Put 'em behind a better rifle and they did.
Getting back to the subject, Military nomenclatures are Gov't owned, therefore public domain. Not able to be trademarked. So, IMO, does the CURRENT Armalite company deserve sole rights to the title AR-10, No. Neither does Colt own sole rights to AR-15. They are Gov't, therefore public domain.
A different case is Springfield, who labeled their civilian, semiautomatic version of the M-14 rifle, the M1A. No military designation there. I'll go completely with Springfield on M1A being theirs. But, not Colt on the AR-15 or Armalite on the AR-10. </div></div>
You question the quality of Colt AR-15s vs many of the clones? This demonstrate you have no clue what you're talking about.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RWSGunsmithing</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any reference to 10 or ten in your description infringes on Armalites trademark.
Trust me I know they sent a email and a certified letter to tell me so.
Here is some of that email.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> RW Snyder Gunsmithing
To whom it may concern;
I recently found a link to your website with information concerning your Ar10 rifle.
I am concerned that your Ar10 trademark infringes on ArmaLite’s registered AR-10 trademark. Since the rifle I see in your advertisement is clearly manufactured in caliber 7.62mm, I’m sure the intrusion is inadvertent.
ArmaLite has long taken the position that any “black rifle” designated with a 10 in it infringes, and we have successfully defended it. Spelling out the 10 or Ar10 doesn’t alter the basic fact of infringement, especially if the term is used in spoken form.
As a courtesy and to avoid unneeded attorney fees, I always communicate such concerns personally. I urge you, however, to contact your attorney concerning this matter to resolve it quickly and without embarrassment.
In addition, ArmaLite supplies components to OEM manufactures who wish to build their own rifles. We may find that there is room for cooperation.
</div></div>
</div></div>
wow... so they sent you a note threatening you with action, and then throw in a half handed collaboration parting gift? lol.
when can we assume to see your armalite shingle out for all to see robert? lol...
good lord...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RWSGunsmithing</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any reference to 10 or ten in your description infringes on Armalites trademark.
Trust me I know they sent a email and a certified letter to tell me so.
Here is some of that email.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> RW Snyder Gunsmithing
To whom it may concern;
I recently found a link to your website with information concerning your Ar10 rifle.
I am concerned that your Ar10 trademark infringes on ArmaLite’s registered AR-10 trademark. Since the rifle I see in your advertisement is clearly manufactured in caliber 7.62mm, I’m sure the intrusion is inadvertent.
ArmaLite has long taken the position that any “black rifle” designated with a 10 in it infringes, and we have successfully defended it. Spelling out the 10 or Ar10 doesn’t alter the basic fact of infringement, especially if the term is used in spoken form.
As a courtesy and to avoid unneeded attorney fees, I always communicate such concerns personally. I urge you, however, to contact your attorney concerning this matter to resolve it quickly and without embarrassment.
In addition, ArmaLite supplies components to OEM manufactures who wish to build their own rifles. We may find that there is room for cooperation.
</div></div>
</div></div>
wow... so they sent you a note threatening you with action, and then throw in a half handed collaboration parting gift? lol.
when can we assume to see your armalite shingle out for all to see robert? lol...
good lord...
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You question the quality of Colt AR-15s vs many of the clones? This demonstrate you have no clue what you're talking about. </div></div>
I laughed when I read that about Colt. Its just a name, much better rifles out there.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You question the quality of Colt AR-15s vs many of the clones? This demonstrate you have no clue what you're talking about. </div></div>
I laughed when I read that about Colt. Its just a name, much better rifles out there.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
Colt is not "just a name". Their rifles undergo more quality control processes than many of their competitors such as magnetic particle inspection of critical parts, high pressure testing, using better steel (such as 4150 CMV), have proper sized gas ports, have the proper buffer, the right extractor springs/inserts, and have staked gas keys and reciecer extensions. There are good rifles out there but few have the attention to detail Colt does. Compare them to, say Rock River, DPMS, Bushmaster, etc. You'll find they are often thrown together based on parts availability and to meet price-points. You'll find 4140 barrels, over-sized gas ports, lighter buffers, lack of staking, no integrity testing of parts, etc.
Seriously, do some research.
There are other brands striving to build higher quality ARs these days such as BCM, Daniel Defense, Noveske, and a few others. By and large, Colt is still the gold standard of fighting carbines.
ETA:
Obviously this is not a complete list, but this will give you somewhat of an idea.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/...hart-out-first/
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsh...amp;output=html
Colt is not "just a name". Their rifles undergo more quality control processes than many of their competitors such as magnetic particle inspection of critical parts, high pressure testing, using better steel (such as 4150 CMV), have proper sized gas ports, have the proper buffer, the right extractor springs/inserts, and have staked gas keys and reciecer extensions. There are good rifles out there but few have the attention to detail Colt does. Compare them to, say Rock River, DPMS, Bushmaster, etc. You'll find they are often thrown together based on parts availability and to meet price-points. You'll find 4140 barrels, over-sized gas ports, lighter buffers, lack of staking, no integrity testing of parts, etc.
Seriously, do some research.
There are other brands striving to build higher quality ARs these days such as BCM, Daniel Defense, Noveske, and a few others. By and large, Colt is still the gold standard of fighting carbines.
ETA:
Obviously this is not a complete list, but this will give you somewhat of an idea.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/...hart-out-first/
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsh...amp;output=html
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A10XRIFLE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10?????? </div></div>If memory serves, the AR10 came first. But that doesn't matter with regard to trademark.
One can trademark anything, the number ten or even a color. But almost all trademark infringement lawsuits boil down to whether or not the challenged name is causing substantial confusion in the marketplace. The issue is whether people are confusing a GAP-10 with an Armalite product (which is doubtful).
I would even argue that an 'AR10' is indicative of a style of rifle more than it indicates an Armalite product. And the more Armalite wants to argue that the number '10' is trademarked for all black rifles the more it proves that the moniker '10' is indicative of a style of rifle and not the Armalite brand. Because when I say I have a '.45' I am not infringing on Colt.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A10XRIFLE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10?????? </div></div>If memory serves, the AR10 came first. But that doesn't matter with regard to trademark.
One can trademark anything, the number ten or even a color. But almost all trademark infringement lawsuits boil down to whether or not the challenged name is causing substantial confusion in the marketplace. The issue is whether people are confusing a GAP-10 with an Armalite product (which is doubtful).
I would even argue that an 'AR10' is indicative of a style of rifle more than it indicates an Armalite product. And the more Armalite wants to argue that the number '10' is trademarked for all black rifles the more it proves that the moniker '10' is indicative of a style of rifle and not the Armalite brand. Because when I say I have a '.45' I am not infringing on Colt.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A10XRIFLE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10?????? </div></div>If memory serves, the AR10 came first. But that doesn't matter with regard to trademark.
One can trademark anything, the number ten or even a color. But almost all trademark infringement lawsuits boil down to whether or not the challenged name is causing substantial confusion in the marketplace. The issue is whether people are confusing a GAP-10 with an Armalite product (which is doubtful).
I would even argue that an 'AR10' is indicative of a style of rifle more than it indicates an Armalite product. And the more Armalite wants to argue that the number '10' is trademarked for all black rifles the more it proves that the moniker '10' is indicative of a style of rifle and not the Armalite brand. Because when I say I have a '.45' I am not infringing on Colt.
</div></div>
Except for the fact that the 10 is the model and AR is the brand Armalite.
One more time
http://www.armalite.com/images/Library/History.pdf
The Ar-1 was made in 1952
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AR-1 Parasniper, a lightweight bolt action rifle started in 1952</div></div>
Ar10 in 1955
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The AR-10 became the main focus of attention beginning in 1955. At that time the Army
was considering the Springfield Armory T-44 (an updated Garand) and the T-48 (a
version of the FN FAL) as replacements for the M1 Garand. ArmaLite hoped to present a
rifle capable of displacing both models.</div></div>
However
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Despite the background
Army interest in a smaller caliber rifle, ArmaLite licensed the
designs and trademarks of the AR-10 and AR- 15 to Colt’s in
January 1959.</div></div>
I'm sure this contract has expired since colt is now making the SP901s (not AR10s) and Armalite is again making AR10s
Anyway, its worth a read. Its a PDF straight from Armalite and it talks about all the AR weapons they have made. From shotguns (AR-17) to their sniper (AR-50)
There is something in patent law that says you can't patent something in common usage and I think this may be the case in regards to the term AR and that's why Armalite is not all over mfgers for calling their guns ar15s.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A10XRIFLE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting Reading, Who knows the answer to this ?
Which rifle came first the AR-15 or the AR-10?????? </div></div>If memory serves, the AR10 came first. But that doesn't matter with regard to trademark.
One can trademark anything, the number ten or even a color. But almost all trademark infringement lawsuits boil down to whether or not the challenged name is causing substantial confusion in the marketplace. The issue is whether people are confusing a GAP-10 with an Armalite product (which is doubtful).
I would even argue that an 'AR10' is indicative of a style of rifle more than it indicates an Armalite product. And the more Armalite wants to argue that the number '10' is trademarked for all black rifles the more it proves that the moniker '10' is indicative of a style of rifle and not the Armalite brand. Because when I say I have a '.45' I am not infringing on Colt.
</div></div>
Except for the fact that the 10 is the model and AR is the brand Armalite.
One more time
http://www.armalite.com/images/Library/History.pdf
The Ar-1 was made in 1952
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AR-1 Parasniper, a lightweight bolt action rifle started in 1952</div></div>
Ar10 in 1955
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The AR-10 became the main focus of attention beginning in 1955. At that time the Army
was considering the Springfield Armory T-44 (an updated Garand) and the T-48 (a
version of the FN FAL) as replacements for the M1 Garand. ArmaLite hoped to present a
rifle capable of displacing both models.</div></div>
However
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Despite the background
Army interest in a smaller caliber rifle, ArmaLite licensed the
designs and trademarks of the AR-10 and AR- 15 to Colt’s in
January 1959.</div></div>
I'm sure this contract has expired since colt is now making the SP901s (not AR10s) and Armalite is again making AR10s
Anyway, its worth a read. Its a PDF straight from Armalite and it talks about all the AR weapons they have made. From shotguns (AR-17) to their sniper (AR-50)
There is something in patent law that says you can't patent something in common usage and I think this may be the case in regards to the term AR and that's why Armalite is not all over mfgers for calling their guns ar15s.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Caelumatra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
There is something in patent law that says you can't patent something in common usage and I think this may be the case in regards to the term AR and that's why Armalite is not all over mfgers for calling their guns ar15s. </div></div>
Except Colt still has the AR-15 mark:
While Armalite uses the M15 mark
I'd imagine this is because Armalite has no rights to "AR-15" as they sold it to Colt. I can only imagine Armalite reacquired "AR-10" at some point as Colt never marketed them. What manufacturers are calling theirs an "AR-15" besides Colt?
Rock River? Nope LAR-15:
DPMS? Nope, A-15:
Bushmaster? Nope, XM-15:
Noveske? Nope, N4:
Smith & Wesson? Nope, M&P-15:
BCM? Nope, they are using a military designation (not trademarked) M4A1:
Knights? Nope, SR-15:
So, looking at what other companies have done in the past, it appears that Armalite may stop people from calling it an "AR-10", but not "GAP-10".
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Caelumatra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
There is something in patent law that says you can't patent something in common usage and I think this may be the case in regards to the term AR and that's why Armalite is not all over mfgers for calling their guns ar15s. </div></div>
Except Colt still has the AR-15 mark:
While Armalite uses the M15 mark
I'd imagine this is because Armalite has no rights to "AR-15" as they sold it to Colt. I can only imagine Armalite reacquired "AR-10" at some point as Colt never marketed them. What manufacturers are calling theirs an "AR-15" besides Colt?
Rock River? Nope LAR-15:
DPMS? Nope, A-15:
Bushmaster? Nope, XM-15:
Noveske? Nope, N4:
Smith & Wesson? Nope, M&P-15:
BCM? Nope, they are using a military designation (not trademarked) M4A1:
Knights? Nope, SR-15:
So, looking at what other companies have done in the past, it appears that Armalite may stop people from calling it an "AR-10", but not "GAP-10".
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd imagine this is because Armalite has no rights to "AR-15" as they sold it to Colt. I can only imagine Armalite reacquired "AR-10" at some point as Colt never marketed them. </div></div>
I'd say you're probably right
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd imagine this is because Armalite has no rights to "AR-15" as they sold it to Colt. I can only imagine Armalite reacquired "AR-10" at some point as Colt never marketed them. </div></div>
I'd say you're probably right
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Caelumatra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is something in patent law that says you can't patent something in common usage and I think this may be the case in regards to the term AR and that's why Armalite is not all over mfgers for calling their guns ar15s.</div></div>It's not a patent. AR10 is a trademark.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Caelumatra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is something in patent law that says you can't patent something in common usage and I think this may be the case in regards to the term AR and that's why Armalite is not all over mfgers for calling their guns ar15s.</div></div>It's not a patent. AR10 is a trademark.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Caelumatra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is something in patent law that says you can't patent something in common usage and I think this may be the case in regards to the term AR and that's why Armalite is not all over mfgers for calling their guns ar15s.</div></div>It's not a patent. AR10 is a trademark. </div></div>
Very well, and this doesn't disagree with you but more clearly says what Armalite is doing
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What Is a Trademark or Servicemark?
A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms "trademark" and "mark" are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks.
Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. Trademarks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered with the Patent and Trademark Office. The registration procedure for trademarks and general information concerning trademarks is described in a separate pamphlet entitled "Basic Facts about Trademarks". </div></div>
http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Caelumatra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is something in patent law that says you can't patent something in common usage and I think this may be the case in regards to the term AR and that's why Armalite is not all over mfgers for calling their guns ar15s.</div></div>It's not a patent. AR10 is a trademark. </div></div>
Very well, and this doesn't disagree with you but more clearly says what Armalite is doing
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What Is a Trademark or Servicemark?
A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms "trademark" and "mark" are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks.
Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. Trademarks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered with the Patent and Trademark Office. The registration procedure for trademarks and general information concerning trademarks is described in a separate pamphlet entitled "Basic Facts about Trademarks". </div></div>
http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Caelumatra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very well, and this doesn't disagree with you but more clearly says what Armalite is doing
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What Is a Trademark or Servicemark?
A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms "trademark" and "mark" are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks.
Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. Trademarks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered with the Patent and Trademark Office. The registration procedure for trademarks and general information concerning trademarks is described in a separate pamphlet entitled "Basic Facts about Trademarks". </div></div>
http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm </div></div>
Lol... Ummm... You do realize that Graham probably understands the definition of Trademark better than most of us? And did you really use a website called "Law Mart" for reference? Really?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Caelumatra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very well, and this doesn't disagree with you but more clearly says what Armalite is doing
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What Is a Trademark or Servicemark?
A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms "trademark" and "mark" are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks.
Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. Trademarks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered with the Patent and Trademark Office. The registration procedure for trademarks and general information concerning trademarks is described in a separate pamphlet entitled "Basic Facts about Trademarks". </div></div>
http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm </div></div>
Lol... Ummm... You do realize that Graham probably understands the definition of Trademark better than most of us? And did you really use a website called "Law Mart" for reference? Really?
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing.
AR could stand for just about anything, hundreds of things could go by that abbreviation therefore your trademarking hundreds of things.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AR
So they trade marked the value of attrition rate for employees at a company? AR-10 = attrition rate of 10.
lol
I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing.
AR could stand for just about anything, hundreds of things could go by that abbreviation therefore your trademarking hundreds of things.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AR
So they trade marked the value of attrition rate for employees at a company? AR-10 = attrition rate of 10.
lol
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lol... Ummm... You do realize that Graham probably understands the definition of Trademark better than most of us? And did you really use a website called "Law Mart" for reference? Really? </div></div>
lol I actually had a comment typed in my reply referring to the source of that lol but decided against it. Again, I'm not disagreeing with him. If Armalite wants to clamp down on people using their names I don't disagree with that either.
He went back and edited his post to reflect a bunch of different brands and I was thinking the same thing. But I went to BCM's site and their "upper receiver" link still says AR15 so I didnt follow that route of research.
Page 16 of the history of Armalite (source is Armalite) it says this in regards to Colt:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">M-15 (1994 - Present)
In order to avoid a conflict with Colt’s trademark of “AR-15”, ArmaLite has designated our version the “M-15”.
“ArmaLite®, “AR-10®”, and “SPR®”, are registered trademarks of ArmaLite, Inc.
“M-15™”, “AR-30™”, “AR-50™”, and other model variants are trademarks of ArmaLite, Inc.
The AR-10® Series Rifles and Carbines (including the SuperSASS™) are protected by U.S. Patents 5,638, 626 and 5,911,173 and 6,044,748.
The M-15™ Series Rifles and Carbines are protected by U.S. Patents 5,911, 173 and
6,044,748.</div></div>
http://www.armalite.com/images/Library/History.pdf
So it would seem they also own the rights to the acronym SPR
So what I am saying is this lol: Armalite is within their rights to do what they did to the OP. And the OP is right "Gunsmiths beware!" when you assemble a product and call it a patented and trademarked name you have violated trademark and patent law and will be asked to stop.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lol... Ummm... You do realize that Graham probably understands the definition of Trademark better than most of us? And did you really use a website called "Law Mart" for reference? Really?
lol I actually had a comment typed in my reply referring to the source of that lol but decided against it. Again, I'm not disagreeing with him. If Armalite wants to clamp down on people using their names I don't disagree with that either.
He went back and edited his post to reflect a bunch of different brands and I was thinking the same thing. But I went to BCM's site and their "upper receiver" link still says AR15 so I didnt follow that route of research.
Page 16 of the history of Armalite (source is Armalite) it says this in regards to Colt:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">M-15 (1994 - Present)
In order to avoid a conflict with Colt’s trademark of “AR-15”, ArmaLite has designated our version the “M-15”.
“ArmaLite®, “AR-10®”, and “SPR®”, are registered trademarks of ArmaLite, Inc.
“M-15™”, “AR-30™”, “AR-50™”, and other model variants are trademarks of ArmaLite, Inc.
The AR-10® Series Rifles and Carbines (including the SuperSASS™) are protected by U.S. Patents 5,638, 626 and 5,911,173 and 6,044,748.
The M-15™ Series Rifles and Carbines are protected by U.S. Patents 5,911, 173 and
6,044,748.</div></div>
http://www.armalite.com/images/Library/History.pdf
So it would seem they also own the rights to the acronym SPR
So what I am saying is this lol: Armalite is within their rights to do what they did to the OP. And the OP is right "Gunsmiths beware!" when you assemble a product and call it a patented and trademarked name you have violated trademark and patent law and will be asked to stop.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing.
AR could stand for just about anything, hundreds of things could go by that abbreviation therefore your trademarking hundreds of things.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AR
So they trade marked the value of attrition rate for employees at a company? AR-10 = attrition rate of 10.
lol </div></div>
You're incorrect. You can Trademark letters and numbers in reference to a specific type of product.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing.
AR could stand for just about anything, hundreds of things could go by that abbreviation therefore your trademarking hundreds of things.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AR
So they trade marked the value of attrition rate for employees at a company? AR-10 = attrition rate of 10.
lol </div></div>
You're incorrect. You can Trademark letters and numbers in reference to a specific type of product.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: K_4c</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
here's your chance to coin your own nomenclature for the ar-10 platform Rob....
</div></div>
I agree with this. Like I mentioned before Iron Ridge Armory when asked (forced) to change the name of their product changed it to IRA X instead of 10. It seems with that loophole you could call it RWS X. Roman numeral X
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: K_4c</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
here's your chance to coin your own nomenclature for the ar-10 platform Rob....
</div></div>
I agree with this. Like I mentioned before Iron Ridge Armory when asked (forced) to change the name of their product changed it to IRA X instead of 10. It seems with that loophole you could call it RWS X. Roman numeral X
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
3M, WD-40, DC-3, L3. Gotta be a few others.
3M, WD-40, DC-3, L3. Gotta be a few others.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing.
AR could stand for just about anything, hundreds of things could go by that abbreviation therefore your trademarking hundreds of things.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AR
So they trade marked the value of attrition rate for employees at a company? AR-10 = attrition rate of 10.
lol </div></div>
You're incorrect. You can Trademark letters and numbers in reference to a specific type of product. </div></div>
So me and a bunch of other people could trade mark the same thing? So I can go trademark AR-10 too?
Because I'm talking about attrition rates etc not guns.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing.
AR could stand for just about anything, hundreds of things could go by that abbreviation therefore your trademarking hundreds of things.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AR
So they trade marked the value of attrition rate for employees at a company? AR-10 = attrition rate of 10.
lol </div></div>
You're incorrect. You can Trademark letters and numbers in reference to a specific type of product. </div></div>
So me and a bunch of other people could trade mark the same thing? So I can go trademark AR-10 too?
Because I'm talking about attrition rates etc not guns.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So me and a bunch of other people could trade mark the same thing? So I can go trademark AR-10 too?
Because I'm talking about attrition rates etc not guns. </div></div>
I'm sure you'd have the same difficulty as someone trying to trademark a very large Macintosh computer and call it the "Big Mac"
Because I'm talking about a computer, not a burger
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So me and a bunch of other people could trade mark the same thing? So I can go trademark AR-10 too?
Because I'm talking about attrition rates etc not guns. </div></div>
I'm sure you'd have the same difficulty as someone trying to trademark a very large Macintosh computer and call it the "Big Mac"
Because I'm talking about a computer, not a burger
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing.
AR could stand for just about anything, hundreds of things could go by that abbreviation therefore your trademarking hundreds of things.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AR
So they trade marked the value of attrition rate for employees at a company? AR-10 = attrition rate of 10.
lol </div></div>
You're incorrect. You can Trademark letters and numbers in reference to a specific type of product. </div></div>
So me and a bunch of other people could trade mark the same thing? So I can go trademark AR-10 too?
Because I'm talking about attrition rates etc not guns. </div></div>
You could trademark AR-10 if it was in reference to another type of product other than a rifle if it's not already trademarked for such a product. Trademarks are in reference to a specific product and not general. Ergo, other rifle manufacturers are prohibited from naming a model AR-10 but Lockheed could easily trademark "AR-10" for it's next fighter plane(if it isn't already trademarked for a plane, lol). You said "I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing." and that is incorrect.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing.
AR could stand for just about anything, hundreds of things could go by that abbreviation therefore your trademarking hundreds of things.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AR
So they trade marked the value of attrition rate for employees at a company? AR-10 = attrition rate of 10.
lol </div></div>
You're incorrect. You can Trademark letters and numbers in reference to a specific type of product. </div></div>
So me and a bunch of other people could trade mark the same thing? So I can go trademark AR-10 too?
Because I'm talking about attrition rates etc not guns. </div></div>
You could trademark AR-10 if it was in reference to another type of product other than a rifle if it's not already trademarked for such a product. Trademarks are in reference to a specific product and not general. Ergo, other rifle manufacturers are prohibited from naming a model AR-10 but Lockheed could easily trademark "AR-10" for it's next fighter plane(if it isn't already trademarked for a plane, lol). You said "I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing." and that is incorrect.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing.
AR could stand for just about anything, hundreds of things could go by that abbreviation therefore your trademarking hundreds of things.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AR
So they trade marked the value of attrition rate for employees at a company? AR-10 = attrition rate of 10.
lol </div></div>
You're incorrect. You can Trademark letters and numbers in reference to a specific type of product. </div></div>
So me and a bunch of other people could trade mark the same thing? So I can go trademark AR-10 too?
Because I'm talking about attrition rates etc not guns. </div></div>
You could trademark AR-10 if it was in reference to another type of product other than a rifle if it's not already trademarked for such a product. Trademarks are in reference to a specific product and not general. Ergo, other rifle manufacturers are prohibited from naming a model AR-10 but Lockheed could easily trademark "AR-10" for it's next fighter plane(if it isn't already trademarked for a plane, lol). </div></div>
If this is the case my smart ass reply is incorrect and I apologize for my mistake Gravitas
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing.
AR could stand for just about anything, hundreds of things could go by that abbreviation therefore your trademarking hundreds of things.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AR
So they trade marked the value of attrition rate for employees at a company? AR-10 = attrition rate of 10.
lol </div></div>
You're incorrect. You can Trademark letters and numbers in reference to a specific type of product. </div></div>
So me and a bunch of other people could trade mark the same thing? So I can go trademark AR-10 too?
Because I'm talking about attrition rates etc not guns. </div></div>
You could trademark AR-10 if it was in reference to another type of product other than a rifle if it's not already trademarked for such a product. Trademarks are in reference to a specific product and not general. Ergo, other rifle manufacturers are prohibited from naming a model AR-10 but Lockheed could easily trademark "AR-10" for it's next fighter plane(if it isn't already trademarked for a plane, lol). </div></div>
If this is the case my smart ass reply is incorrect and I apologize for my mistake Gravitas
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing. </div></div>Yes you can. And that's what they did. Please read the Thread before you add to it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gr4vitas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't even think it would actually be possible to trademark "AR-10" you can't trademark letters or numbers and effectively thats what they'd be doing. </div></div>Yes you can. And that's what they did. Please read the Thread before you add to it.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
copy/paste from HERE
1. Why does everyone make a big deal of calling my semi 308 a "AR10"?
The reason is because Armalite has spent a lot of money producing the AR-10 when no-one else would. They have spent a lot of time building the name and reputation not to just have someone else use it to describe their rifle. Another problem stems from the fact that many people refer to problems with their "semi 308" as a "AR-10 problems". This misnomer leads people to believe that the AR-10 is a poorly built rifle with a lot of problems, when in fact, the opposite is true.
Even if you don't agree at least you should understand, you wouldn't order a "Coke" if you wanted a "Pepsi", you also wouldn't order a "Pepsi Coke"
Yes its a big deal.
copy/paste from HERE
1. Why does everyone make a big deal of calling my semi 308 a "AR10"?
The reason is because Armalite has spent a lot of money producing the AR-10 when no-one else would. They have spent a lot of time building the name and reputation not to just have someone else use it to describe their rifle. Another problem stems from the fact that many people refer to problems with their "semi 308" as a "AR-10 problems". This misnomer leads people to believe that the AR-10 is a poorly built rifle with a lot of problems, when in fact, the opposite is true.
Even if you don't agree at least you should understand, you wouldn't order a "Coke" if you wanted a "Pepsi", you also wouldn't order a "Pepsi Coke"
Yes its a big deal.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Original_Copy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">copy/paste from HERE
1. Why does everyone make a big deal of calling my semi 308 a "AR10"?
The reason is because Armalite has spent a lot of money producing the AR-10 when no-one else would. They have spent a lot of time building the name and reputation not to just have someone else use it to describe their rifle. Another problem stems from the fact that many people refer to problems with their "semi 308" as a "AR-10 problems". This misnomer leads people to believe that the AR-10 is a poorly built rifle with a lot of problems, when in fact, the opposite is true.
Even if you don't agree at least you should understand, you wouldn't order a "Coke" if you wanted a "Pepsi", you also wouldn't order a "Pepsi Coke"
Yes its a big deal. </div></div>
This is a very good explanation but there are some assumptions in it that I'm not convinced are accurate. Most notably the notion that the consumer would assign a lack of quality to an Armalite rifle because someone had issues with their <span style="font-style: italic">insert mfgr here</span>. .308 autos aren't cheap and they're not exactly impulse purchases, at least in the context of choosing a manufacturer. I'm on my second .308 and had researched both of them extensively prior to making the leap. As part of that research I had looked at Armalite and subsequently looked elsewhere not due to any percieved quality issue, but because of the proprietary nature of the parts, the fact that others had taken the platform in new directions, and this very branding arguement which I found to be a turn-off considering that AR-anything had made it into pop culture...its almost a household word.
It's almost insulting to think that the shooting community doesn't know the difference and I think the arguement does more harm to Armalite than good. It was a far better arguement before the internet. Now...info is everywhere and shooters educate themselves. There's no confusion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Original_Copy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">copy/paste from HERE
1. Why does everyone make a big deal of calling my semi 308 a "AR10"?
The reason is because Armalite has spent a lot of money producing the AR-10 when no-one else would. They have spent a lot of time building the name and reputation not to just have someone else use it to describe their rifle. Another problem stems from the fact that many people refer to problems with their "semi 308" as a "AR-10 problems". This misnomer leads people to believe that the AR-10 is a poorly built rifle with a lot of problems, when in fact, the opposite is true.
Even if you don't agree at least you should understand, you wouldn't order a "Coke" if you wanted a "Pepsi", you also wouldn't order a "Pepsi Coke"
Yes its a big deal. </div></div>
This is a very good explanation but there are some assumptions in it that I'm not convinced are accurate. Most notably the notion that the consumer would assign a lack of quality to an Armalite rifle because someone had issues with their <span style="font-style: italic">insert mfgr here</span>. .308 autos aren't cheap and they're not exactly impulse purchases, at least in the context of choosing a manufacturer. I'm on my second .308 and had researched both of them extensively prior to making the leap. As part of that research I had looked at Armalite and subsequently looked elsewhere not due to any percieved quality issue, but because of the proprietary nature of the parts, the fact that others had taken the platform in new directions, and this very branding arguement which I found to be a turn-off considering that AR-anything had made it into pop culture...its almost a household word.
It's almost insulting to think that the shooting community doesn't know the difference and I think the arguement does more harm to Armalite than good. It was a far better arguement before the internet. Now...info is everywhere and shooters educate themselves. There's no confusion.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
Hey Robert,
I'm not going to weigh in on all this "AR-10" versus other precision semi-auto .308 shitstorm...Graham (and others) have got it covered.
I did want to relay an issue I saw with your site and the use of the "AR-10" moniker in showing your custom builds to a friend of mine at work a little bit ago who is interested in a new build. On the "RWS Custom Rifles" page, the link to your "Premier Semi Auto" still says "AR-10" on it. Figured you might want to get with your web guy on that issue as I don't want to see you take any more flak than you've already gotten from the Armalite legal team.
Take care and God bless!
Hey Robert,
I'm not going to weigh in on all this "AR-10" versus other precision semi-auto .308 shitstorm...Graham (and others) have got it covered.
I did want to relay an issue I saw with your site and the use of the "AR-10" moniker in showing your custom builds to a friend of mine at work a little bit ago who is interested in a new build. On the "RWS Custom Rifles" page, the link to your "Premier Semi Auto" still says "AR-10" on it. Figured you might want to get with your web guy on that issue as I don't want to see you take any more flak than you've already gotten from the Armalite legal team.
Take care and God bless!
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's almost insulting to think that the shooting community doesn't know the difference and I think the arguement does more harm to Armalite than good. It was a far better arguement before the internet. Now...info is everywhere and shooters educate themselves. There's no confusion. </div></div>
I have to disagree. Spend some time at a public range. See how much people really know about the guns they own and shoot. Assumptions abound.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's almost insulting to think that the shooting community doesn't know the difference and I think the arguement does more harm to Armalite than good. It was a far better arguement before the internet. Now...info is everywhere and shooters educate themselves. There's no confusion. </div></div>
I have to disagree. Spend some time at a public range. See how much people really know about the guns they own and shoot. Assumptions abound.
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's almost insulting to think that the shooting community doesn't know the difference and I think the arguement does more harm to Armalite than good. It was a far better arguement before the internet. Now...info is everywhere and shooters educate themselves. There's no confusion. </div></div>
I have to disagree. Spend some time at a public range. See how much people really know about the guns they own and shoot. Assumptions abound. </div></div>
I, for one, will just take your word for it
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's almost insulting to think that the shooting community doesn't know the difference and I think the arguement does more harm to Armalite than good. It was a far better arguement before the internet. Now...info is everywhere and shooters educate themselves. There's no confusion. </div></div>
I have to disagree. Spend some time at a public range. See how much people really know about the guns they own and shoot. Assumptions abound. </div></div>
I, for one, will just take your word for it
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have to disagree. Spend some time at a public range. See how much people really know about the guns they own and shoot. Assumptions abound. </div></div>
OK I do have to concede this point. There is one local range near me where the level of stupidity is frightening, and its almost incomprehensible that these window lickers are allowed to even own cutlery. If Armalite can fix that I might even buy one of their rifles
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have to disagree. Spend some time at a public range. See how much people really know about the guns they own and shoot. Assumptions abound. </div></div>
OK I do have to concede this point. There is one local range near me where the level of stupidity is frightening, and its almost incomprehensible that these window lickers are allowed to even own cutlery. If Armalite can fix that I might even buy one of their rifles
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
If a trade mark is issued to differentiate between products then wouldn't calling your rifle a GAP-10, obviously made by GAP differentiate it from AR-10, obviously made by Armalite? Can't RWS call there rifle a RWS-10?
If a trade mark is issued to differentiate between products then wouldn't calling your rifle a GAP-10, obviously made by GAP differentiate it from AR-10, obviously made by Armalite? Can't RWS call there rifle a RWS-10?
Re: Watch out Ar 308 makers and smiths
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 78steeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If a trade mark is issued to differentiate between products then wouldn't calling your rifle a GAP-10, obviously made by GAP differentiate it from AR-10, obviously made by Armalite? Can't RWS call there rifle a RWS-10? </div></div>Exactly. The issue is almost always about whether or not the alleged infringement causes confusion in the marketplace.
In this case the same argument can be used by both sides, but from different points of view: Armalite will say that people will be confused that a GAP-10 is an Armalite product; GAP (for example) would say that there's no basis for that confusion.
Are people really going to think a GAP-10 is an Armalite product? Not likely. Because it's not like a manufacturer is using a Harley Davidson-type symbol on a motorcycle or the Jack Daniels No.7 label design/colors to sell Ketchup.
But Armalite's advantage here is money: They can scare the little guy by threatening to sue, which will cost money to defend if it ever happens.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 78steeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If a trade mark is issued to differentiate between products then wouldn't calling your rifle a GAP-10, obviously made by GAP differentiate it from AR-10, obviously made by Armalite? Can't RWS call there rifle a RWS-10? </div></div>Exactly. The issue is almost always about whether or not the alleged infringement causes confusion in the marketplace.
In this case the same argument can be used by both sides, but from different points of view: Armalite will say that people will be confused that a GAP-10 is an Armalite product; GAP (for example) would say that there's no basis for that confusion.
Are people really going to think a GAP-10 is an Armalite product? Not likely. Because it's not like a manufacturer is using a Harley Davidson-type symbol on a motorcycle or the Jack Daniels No.7 label design/colors to sell Ketchup.
But Armalite's advantage here is money: They can scare the little guy by threatening to sue, which will cost money to defend if it ever happens.
Similar threads
