Daniel Defense Sues Remington for Trademark Violation
Remington just can’t seem to get itself out of legal battles, now being sued by Daniel Defense for trademark infringement. Daniel Defense claims that Remington, more specifically Remington’s subsidiary DPMS, has been knocking off their slogan (“Lighter. Stronger. Better.”( and trademark dual chevrons (“>>”).
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:
Daniel Defense, based in Black Creek near Savannah, claims it has trademark rights to the slogan “Lighter, Stronger, Better,” which the company said it has used since 1996 to promote accessory parts for its custom-made rifles.
The company also claims it has trademark rights to a “>>” chevron, an image of two strips meeting at an angle, which the company has used to promote its firearms and accessories since early 2012.
Daniel Defense said Remington’s use of the slogans “Lighter, Stronger and even more badass” and “Lighter, Stronger and every bit as accurate as the original” in marketing material confuses consumers since the material does not prominently carry the Remington or DPMS names.
Daniel said the slogans and a chevron similar to its double-striped symbol have appeared in Remington’s print and online advertising, in catalogs, on marketing banners and at trade shows, including one this year in Las Vegas.
“The purchasing consumer is likely to be confused as to the source, origin or sponsorship of the firearm for sale,” the lawsuit said.
Daniel Defense produces custom-made rifles, parts and gear for consumers and law enforcement. The weapons can start at $1,000 and cost more than $3,000.
My take? Remington’s and/or DPMS’ Marketing departments either ripped it off or did not do their due diligence on similar marketing. My assumption is the former and this will likely be settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. Daniel Defense has them dead-to-rights, legally speaking.
One of TFB's resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR's, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.
More by Nathan S
Comments
Join the conversation
I love all the trademark "lawyers" chiming in. Where'd you get you JD's? What you think about trademarks has no bearing on what the law says. Daniel Defense is going to win this one.
If the intellectual firepower displayed by the commenters is indicative of the mental prowess of the folks we hope to defend our 2A rights, then we're screwed.
As a trademark (and patent) attorney with decades of experience, and who represents more firearms industry companies than any other lawyer or law firm (but neither of these two companies) I can offer some thoughts:
1. Daniel Defense registered the chevron logo early in 2014. Remington and everyone else ha the usual chance to object to the registration late in 2013, but didn't. (This is why I review every trademark filing related to firearms each month for my many clients). This logo trademark is presumably as legitimate as any logo out there. Here's the link: tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=...
2. Given the registration, Remington is in the weaker position. You normally can't just copy your competitor's logo and rotate it by 90 degrees. Imagine if Adidas did that with Nike's "swoosh."
3. Yes, the Chevron oil company uses a similar logo, but that's for unrelated goods and services. Trademarks normally apply only to the related goods, which is why United Airlines and United Van Lines coexist without confusion.
4. Remington has a stronger case about using two of the three words in the DD slogan. They can argue that they are using them descriptively, not as a trademark. Every business has the right to describe their goods, and "lighter" and "stronger" are arguably necessary. If Remington tried using all three in the same sequence, they'd have a real problem. My client Hornady has a trademark for "Accurate. Deadly. Dependable." And it is enforceable. Whether there are periods, commas or nothing between the words is irrelevant to trademark rights.
Unless these companies wish to spend a fortune fighting, the simple solution is for Remington to stop using the chevron, and Daniel to accept that "lighter, stronger" can be used by others (but maybe not as a trademark).
Anyone looking to learn more details of trademark law from the perspective of a firearms business owner should visit my website and order a free copy of my 400-page book on the subject (and patents). It's $20 on Amazon, and it's free to qualified TFB readers who can figure out my website from my screen name.
Bennet Langlotz, "The Firearms Trademark Attorney (TM)"