Daniel Defense Sues Remington (Again) For Use of “V3” Trademark

More bad news for America’s oldest gunmaker. Daniel Defense has sued Remington again, this time for use of its “V3” trademark. From Guns.com:

Daniel Defense, Inc. filed suit against Remington Outdoor Company for trademark infringement in a Georgia federal court earlier this month.

According to the complaint, Daniel Defense alleges Remington has been using its distinctive V3 trademark to market firearms earlier this year. The George-based AR maker says it registered the trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2010.

Remington applied “V3” in its naming of a series of autoloading shotguns and even branded the side of each gun with a “V3” symbol. Daniel Defense alleges Remington created further consumer confusion by using the “V3” branding in ads, webpages and social media.

In its argument Daniel Defense says the case is “exceptional” under the Lanham Act, which prohibits trademark infringement, trademark dilution and false advertising. In civil suits plaintiffs often claim the likelihood of confusion in regard to their trademark, and in return Daniel Defense is asking for an unspecified amount in damages times three.

Last summer, Daniel Defense filed suit against Remington for using variations of the company’s catchphrase “Lighter. Stronger. Better.” The company alleged the line appeared in an ad for the Remington-owned DPMS Firearms. This case is set to conclude in August.

Remington’s use of the logo, pictured in the title image for this article, uses a different logo than Daniel Defense’s “V3” trademark, but the two are close enough to possibly induce confusion. This trademark dispute is the second lawsuit of Remington by Daniel Defense, after the latter company accused Remington of using its slogan “Lighter. Stronger. Better.” last year. That case has still not been resolved.

Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


  • Riot

    Fight Fight Fight!

    I thought Remington’s owners were trying to sell – getting into legal disputes is not going to make it more appealing a prospect.

  • d_grey

    I miss the ACR…..

  • Marty Ewer

    The honorable thing to do in a case like this would be to have a sit-down meeting, discuss the grievance, and come up with a workable solution that both sides are amenable to.

  • Doug

    I get the issue w/ the catchphrase. But using “v3” on a firearm? WTF ? I can’t believe the USPTO granted DD a patent for that . . .
    Ask Intel when they tried to patent 8086, 80×86, and what happened to them . . .

    • Budogunner

      Trademark issues are very different from patent issues. If this was claimed as a patent dispute it would be so stupid as to be thrown out. As a trademark, though, it may have traction.

  • kyphe

    No one should be able to trademark common terms and designations like V1 V2 or Mk2 or X3.

    • sauerquint

      … or black rectangles …

  • greensoup

    They appear to have patented the visual logo. The Remington V3 logo show in the article and the DD logo (not shown) do not look similar at all.

  • All the Raindrops

    I have a V3 scope from Weaver. Maybe DD should sue them too. And maybe large breasted women should sue DD. Then I’ll sue large breasted women for being on the internet and distracting me from my work. Then I’ll sue work for existing. Bam.

  • Sadler

    It seems that both Remington and Daniel Defense own a trademark of “V3” on firearms. Additionally, according to the USPTO trademark search, Daniel Defense didn’t file for the trademark until April of this year. Whereas Remington filed for it February of last year.

    DD does have first use in 2010, but, if what I remember from my work in IP is accurate, first use stopped being a consideration in IP law in 2012.

  • DaveGinOly

    Daniel Defense, a car company, an aircraft company, a boat builder, and a maker of refrigerators could all use “V3” and none would have a claim against the other – there’s no potential for confusion of one article with another. However, because DD and Remington both use(d) “V3” on firearms, DD can enforce its trademark against Remington because they’re selling similar products (firearms) and there’s potential that the two can be confused.

    • Ian Thorne

      Yes, it can be confused if you are a complete moron. Like I said, just about every company ever has a version 3 of their products, so being able to trademark “version 3” is just moronic. It’s more like trying to trademark the term SUV because you are the first company to make an SUV.

  • uncle fester

    If true, Winchester would be able to roll out a V3 Shotgun. Ford can’t make a Z28 car.

    Using V3 as the name of a firearm was the result of a poor job by Remington’s atty’s. Using the same name as DD was asking for trouble.

    • Ian Thorne

      Z28 is far more distinctive than V3. Like I said, just about every company ever has a version 3 of their products. Being able to trademark “version 3” is stupid. It is not comparable at all to Z28.