S&W sends cease and desist to BDL, Apex, SSVI, and Brownells.

[Battle Cock]

Several sources are posting images of a cease and desist order directed towards BDL, Apex, SSVI, and Brownells claiming infringement of intellectual property in the modifications performed or promoted by the listed companies.
Details are a bit short right now, but I get the impression that S&W's best legal justification here hinges on the "rebranding" of their products. The reactions I've seen so far from those targeted have been justifiably aggravated but a part of me wonders about the wisdom of reacting publicly so quickly. (Despite the outcry it is raising)

That said, what the hell?? I see no possible situation in which this is a good move for S&W. They are in many ways trying to stifle modifications to personal property, and innovation in general.

I had planned to buy a M&P 9 in the near future with the intent to fully customize it. But if this is as petty as it seems then there is no way S&W with get a dime from me unless they drop the issue.

Ballistic Radio noted on Facebook that one of S&W's demands includes the forfeiture of all S&W products.

https://www.facebook.com/ballisticradio/photos/pcb.738309049633261/738308246300008/?type=3&theater

https://www.instagram.com/p/_miiI5F8ZN/?taken-by=ssvi_llc

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/daniel-zimmerman/smith-wesson-bans-some-aftermarket-mods/

[RiverRat]

Edited to remove intitial comment.

ROFL - I just saw the letter. Their problem isn't "missing" logos......its that a logo is still there (on the frame) and that the pistol is still being called an M&P after extensive modification.

[bash]

I can't see how display of this on Brownell's and at SHOT would have done anything but provide free press for S&W.....seems like they shot themselves in the foot.

[Battle Cock]

Reading the pages posted on Ballistic Radio's page actually indicates that S&W takes issue with the fact that the modified pistols are still marketed as M&P pistols and retain their trademarks.

As if anyone would believe that any handgun with that level of custom sophistication would be marketed by S&W from the factory and warrantied as such.

I'm still not clear on what they are trying to accomplish. I see no damages except what they are doing to their own sales through the bad publicity they are producing here.

Edit: just saw your edit. And I completely agree.

[Battle Cock]

BDL just posted the following:
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12/22/0e04188ed63c471c5866aa49b23bd86f.jpg
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12/22/00937f8be2abd5215ec7b2eb44486427.jpg

[RiverRat]

The irony here is that when you look at Stag getting hammered for record keeping then look at this.......don't the customizers HAVE to call it a S&W M&P so that the serial number is ATF-traceable?

Catch-22.

I had been thinking about a threaded full size M&P9 as a suppressor host too - not anymore (I don't like companies that are so influenced by bean counters and stinking lawyers).

[Farva]

For some reason when I read things like this, that seem to be nothing but pettiness at its finest, I just imagine a bunch of babies dressed as CEO's crying about a few dimes lost here or there. Or just making waves to make waves.

[DutyUse]

On a positive note. The photo of the MP in question is sick!

[RiverRat]

For some reason when I read things like this, that seem to be nothing but pettiness at its finest, I just imagine a bunch of babies dressed as CEO's crying about a few dimes lost here or there. Or just making waves to make waves.

Unfortunately, owners have to actively defend their property to maintain protection under the law.

I simply think this just wasn't the right way to handle it - the whole thing could have started with a phone call or an offer of a single-use license (in which the warranty could be clearly voided).

In a similar vein, I wonder how much goodwill (and revenue) ETS got from the stink Magpul cause with their cease and desist. I know it put ETS in my "products to consider" bucket. Likewise, this is probably great press for Apex and BDL.

[UWone77]

I'm going to cut and paste a response from my buddy Ty at Midwest PX who summarized this better than I could.



Smith & Wesson isn't saying you can't modify your guns. The issue is trademarks. Read, comprehend, then post.

[MonkeyBomb]

I just nuked S&W on my page.

S&W is upset that their logo was left on the gun. That's stupid.

It's the equivalent of Ford being mad that BigFoot left the blue oval on the truck. You would think that they would be happy that they used their product to make a sweet semi-custom pistol.


Or Dodge getting pissed off that I put bigger tires, nice rims and tried my hand at some custom painting on my truck.

They are eating their own.

I may reach out to blown deadline for a little custom work I have been putting off.

[Battle Cock]

I'm going to cut and paste a response from my buddy Ty at Midwest PX who summarized this better than I could.

I hear ya, trademarks are definitely at the core of this. However, I still don't see the point. Even if they have a legal right for dispute, I don't see why they would have a vested interest in doing so. Especially if it's over just one gun that would have resulted in positive publicity for the company.

[Battle Cock]

I was having a conversation with a buddy a couple days ago regarding the difference between the best way to do something, and the most effective way to do it. S&W is trying to protect their trademark with legal action. This, if it has merit can be very effective.
However, the most effective way to do something is often not the best course of action. For instance, the most effective way to help someone stop sneezing is to shoot them several times in the head. They will never sneeze again. Now obviously, that's extreme, and it's definitely not the best way to accomplish the goal.
In very much the same way, S&W chose an action that though effective, created consequences for themselves and it targets people who obviously had great appreciation for one of S&W's products.
The known details of this situation would have to change immensely for me to support S&W's actions here.

[fledge]

S&W was the brand the SB terrorists used. I would think they'd want a bit of positive spotlight from the public these days, trademark issue or not.

[SwissyJim]

Wow, they'd hate to see what I did with my M&P15-22!

Is it merely their way of covering their asses so if/when something goes BOOM from a home done modification then they are sued? I could see... just maybe.. the APEX trigger in that scenario, but c'mon.. BDL? A paintjob is against their rules? Or even some custom milling? OooOOoOoh, don't touch your S&W! They will sue you, the guy that gave them money for their product.

I understand their trademark, image, etc... but this is a really horrible way to go about it. Gun guys are like gearheads... stock is never good enough.And that gun posted is badass... I would happily waiver the warranty to own that.

Well, I'm selling my Shield in favor the the Sig 239 anyways so I don't have to worry about it.

[Battle Cock]

Just to be clear guys, S&W isn't forbidding its customers to modify their guns, they are just being dicks to people who modify guns for a living.
I mean... They are demanding that the firearm above be handed over to them.

[SwissyJim]

I don't see a lot of difference between the two, other than one makes money off it. Yeah, that's 'bad'... but still it's not a far stretch between the two. At least in my opinion. I don't like to see companies screw with those that are actually trying to promote that companies wares. If this keeps going the route it is headed, who is to say that when I return my S&W M&P15-22 for work, that is most DEFINITELY not in the original configuration, that they not honor the warranty? It's a slippery slope...

[Battle Cock]

I don't see a lot of difference between the two, other than one makes money off it. Yeah, that's 'bad'... but still it's not a far stretch between the two. At least in my opinion. I don't like to see companies screw with those that are actually trying to promote that companies wares. If this keeps going the route it is headed, who is to say that when I return my S&W M&P15-22 for work, that is most DEFINITELY not in the original configuration, that they not honor the warranty? It's a slippery slope...

The message they are sending certainly has negative undertones toward anyone making modifications to their products. After all, it appears they went through all this trouble just to strong-arm one gun away from a group of people who collaborated to create their vision of the ultimate handgun, choosing a S&W product as its foundation. It's almost as though their custom shop R&D department is out of ideas and they are looking to take that vision for themselves. (Though I can't see why they wouldn't just obtain such things by other means.) maybe they are trying to gain rights of some sort over the modifications.

You guys know how much I love modifying my guns and showing them off, and since S&W has threatened action against people doing just that, (especially if it's true that no guns of the sort in question were ever presented for sale) they can expect no business from me until that culture within their company changes. Which, at a minimum would have been one handgun in the next six months.

[MonkeyBomb]

I see no difference than a custom Harley Davidson. No matter what a custom shop does as long as they use the frame its a Harley.

You can stretch it, paint it, chop the fenders, replace the forks and put a huge tire on it and it's still a Harley.

SEMA shows are a perfect example. Plenty of customized car and trucks that look and function far differently than the original. They are still considered whatever they rolled off the production line as. Displaying them and even giving one away doesn't change the fact that it started life as a 2014 Toyota Tacoma.

I could see an issue if they ground off the logo and then claimed it was a ABC special pistol instead of an M&P that was customized.

It certainly doesn't appear to be the best move for S&W if nothing else from a public perspective.

I can understand if this was being passed off as a project by Smith and Wesson. But after looking at the APEX site its nothing of the sort.

Will this hurt S&W as bad as when they supported gun control? Probably not but it surely won't help sales.

[steveptr]

More I've read it sounds like s&w misread the press release and was under the impression that this gun was going to sold. Which was not the case.

Sounds like someone at smith really screwed the pooch. Could have been cleared up with a phone call to brownells and apex instead of sending a c&d letter

yee yee trucks and guns

[Battle Cock]

More I've read it sounds like s&w misread the press release and was under the impression that this gun was going to sold. Which was not the case.

They could certainly have benefited from the advice UWone77 shared.
Read, comprehend, then post.
Either way, there are a lot of pissed off people posting on their Facebook page.

[Dstrbdmedic167]

I'm guilty myself but someone in their position should really work on doing the above better(UW post) but that still doesn't make what they did legit.. uncool...

[Battle Cock]

It just occurred to me, what about Salient Arms? They must have some sort of agreement with S&W because they've been modding, selling, and branding M&P handguns for years.
That, or S&W has some sort of specific disapproval of one of the companies involved in the current situation.
If I was a company like Salient Arms and I had no agreement established with S&W at this point, I'd already be meeting with my lawyers.

[Battle Cock]

Just found this on Ballistic Radio's FB. It also mentions my question about SAI and sums thing up nicely from a perspective more familiar with the legal side of the industry.


A quick analysis of the current S&W fiasco by a lawyer/sponsored shooter friend that I am reposting with permission.
"I'm not speaking for SIG, Grayguns, my other sponsors, or my employer. This is my rant and I'm the only one responsible.
So we have here Apex, who at their own cost (from what I understand) offered gunsmithing services to keep competitors' S&W M&P guns running at the S&W title match - IDPA Indoor Nationals - when S&W wouldn't or couldn't. Brownells, who really needs no introduction. Some other fine companies making modifications that make people want to buy more M&Ps, and they hire someone from an expensive outside law firm, whose representative list of client industries doesn't include firearms or manufacturing, to write this flaming pile of [censored], sent out three days before Christmas and imposing a deadline that will be close to impossible to meet (not to mention ruinously expensive) given the holidays? And that's giving them the benefit of the doubt on the typo for the response deadline.
I take the point that the "Dream M&P" was announced just on Friday (and I'm willing to bet at least a few associates' weekends were ruined over this), but it's not like most of these companies don't have a history of providing a large and popular line of aftermarket accessories and modifications....and in fact, the overreaching demands go far beyond the "Dream M&P" that apparently brought S&W's hammer down, to products that S&W can't possibly argue that they weren't aware of in the past and indeed, they have acknowledged Apex's work in particular in their own marketing materials (see http://www.smith-wesson.com/.../BallisticIssue001_SW_58...)
AND this C&D is essentially to argue trademark confusion? Against companies that have arguably raised the perception of the brand (unless you want to count the fact that Apex has made any factory trigger S&W put on the M&P a joke) and who S&W has had ample opportunity to partner with? From companies whose general audiences are tinkerers, i.e., people who buy something and put flair on it?
AND if S&W wants to be consistent about this, where are their C&Ds against ATEI? SAI? Saying you have to act to preserve your rights in your marks (a la Kleenex or Thermos's failure to do so and subsequent genericization) is weak.
First salvo out from outside counsel is ridiculous. This should have been handled by a phone call by senior executives requesting that it be made clear S&W was not a sponsor/supporter and/or a letter from in-house counsel. And long before this, S&W should have been working on partnering with Apex in any case.
See also: Streisand effect.
PS - I have never been prouder to be wearing SIG's logo on my back. You know, the company that recognized one of their premier aftermarket parts makers by putting one of their most visible parts into their new elite line?"

[Dstrbdmedic167]

Mike posted reposted this from S&W

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12/23/03d1cd69a09c0da63b7a801e9aab7cb0.jpg

[steveptr]

In other words they are choking on a fat dick. And now they are trying to figure out how to get the bad taste out of their mouth.

They royaly fucked up time to fix it guys.

yee yee trucks and guns

[Pyzik]

They may (or may not) have sent the same (or a similar) letter to ATEi in the past.

But I can't say...... Ahem.

[steveptr]

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12/23/f4e149e7dcdaafeec178a0a1f33a83b1.jpg

yee yee trucks and guns

[Battle Cock]

They may (or may not) have sent the same (or a similar) letter to ATEi in the past.

But I can't say...... Ahem.

ATEi doesn't sell M&P's does it?

I'm glad this whole situation is working itself out. There were too many pissed off people for S&W not to jump on a retraction.

http://bearingarms.com/smith-wesson-fully-understand-dream-gun-project-apologizes/

That said, the fact that this came from a low level indicates that this type of action is not unusual and seems to be SOP in certain instances. (it required no oversight to dispatch) Like I was saying earlier about the difference between the best way vs the most effective way, I think they need to reconsider their strategy to find the better way to protect their trademarks, and avoid fighting battles that never need to be started in the first place.

[steveptr]

They seam to have a history of fucking up http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12/23/284672e7152a1a916b18c2a0f6a04a0c.jpg

yee yee trucks and guns

[MonkeyBomb]

I am not surprised by the retraction. The letter was way out of bounds and just plain ridiculous in some areas. The letter hurt them far more than they expected. The court of public opinion can be harsh and I can imagine that this is going to hurt them where it counts.

I would imagine it's going to take a bit more than a retraction to fix the issue. I would really hope that an attorney that was careless enough to "misunderstand" what Brownells was doing probably needs to return their sheepskin.

[BoilerUp]

That said, the fact that this came from a low level indicates that this type of action is not unusual and seems to be SOP in certain instances. (it required no oversight to dispatch) Like I was saying earlier about the difference between the best way vs the most effective way, I think they need to reconsider their strategy to find the better way to protect their trademarks, and avoid fighting battles that never need to be started in the first place.

I've seen environments where the IP, contracts, and/or legal people have quite a bit of autonomy in their jobs and more "power" within the organization that than people that are actually trying to run a business. It's not pretty or fun.