Jump to content


Glock-v-Wu-et-al


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Jupiter33458

Jupiter33458

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Country:

Posted 08 March 2014 - 08:03 PM

.
In the document, filed by GLOCK, they list the KWA ATP and ATP Auto as “…unlicensed and unauthorized replica copies of the GLOCK 17 and GLOCK 18; respectively.
.
What will this mean for those of us that have/use the ATP-line of KWA GBB pistols?
.
K.V.

#2 Chuck S

Chuck S

    Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,311 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cleveland, Ohio
  • Country:

Posted 09 March 2014 - 05:02 AM

Means nothing at all to the end user.  The suit wants Airsplat to stop claiming these are toy Glocks etc.

Glock claims their ugly blocky look is some sort on intellectual property and a toy resembling it is a violation of some sort.  They also claim words like Gen 3 and Gen 4 are their exclusive property.

They want all toy Glocks in possession of Airsplat turned into them.

-- Chuck

Edited by Chuck S, 09 March 2014 - 05:24 AM.


#3 Chicken

Chicken

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Country:

Posted 01 April 2014 - 02:09 PM

Well I better get mine before that happens


#4 Boss302

Boss302

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 07 April 2014 - 06:14 PM

View PostChuck S, on 09 March 2014 - 05:02 AM, said:

Means nothing at all to the end user.  The suit wants Airsplat to stop claiming these are toy Glocks etc.

Glock claims their ugly blocky look is some sort on intellectual property and a toy resembling it is a violation of some sort.  They also claim words like Gen 3 and Gen 4 are their exclusive property.

They want all toy Glocks in possession of Airsplat turned into them.

-- Chuck
Glock has every right to protect their property be it "ugly" or "blocky".  what I don't get it is having exclusive rights to the words Gen 3 and Gen 4?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users