Ruger Files Lawsuit Against Smith & Wesson Over 10/22 Rifle Design

[Zappa]

Sturm, Ruger takes Smith & Wesson to court over its iconic .22-caliber rifle

CONCORD — One of the most popular rifles made and sold in the United States — the .22-caliber Ruger 10-22 — is the subject of a high-stakes court battle, with

www.unionleader.com

 

[amm5061]

I wondered when they would get around to suing S&W over that. It just seemed way too much like a copy of the 10-22.

 

[FiremanBob]

I downloaded a copy of the complaint filed on July 31. "Trade Dress" is an odd concept, relating to design features that are not required for functionality. Apparently copying someone's "trade dress" could lead to confusion in customers and negate the effects of the design owner's investment in building the brand. Here are some relevant details on that from the complaint:

18. The trade dress of the 10/22 rifle is an arbitrary combination of elements which forms a nonfunctional design.
19. Ruger’s trade dress is the result of specific design choices made during the development of the rifle to achieve the final appearance and is not dictated by utilitarian purposes.
20. It is not necessary to make a semi-automatic .22 caliber rifle which looks like the 10/22 rifle to perform the same functions or to be successful in the marketplace.
24. The trade dress of the Ruger 10/22 rifle has acquired a substantial level of source identifying capability, i.e. secondary meaning.
25. This secondary meaning is the result of, among other things, the widespread popularity and use of the Ruger 10/22 rifle worldwide and especially throughout the United States and Canada.
26. This secondary meaning is also the by-product of Ruger’s extensive marketing and promotional efforts, along with third-party publicity.
27. The Ruger 10/22 rifle is promoted by independent third parties (e.g. Davidsons, Inc.).
28. Ruger has promoted the sale of the 10/22 rifle through extensive advertising in newspapers and magazines as well as appearances at trade shows and other events worldwide and, in particular, the United States and Canada.
29. Ruger has spent millions of dollars marketing the 10/22 rifle.

Ruger asks the court to force TC to stop producing the TCR22.

I wonder if Kel-Tec will file suit against Ruger for the LCP.

 

[dcmdon]

I downloaded a copy of the complaint filed on July 31. "Trade Dress" is an odd concept, relating to design features that are not required for functionality. Apparently copying someone's "trade dress" could lead to confusion in customers and negate the effects of the design owner's investment in building the brand. Here are some relevant details on that from the complaint:



Ruger asks the court to force TC to stop producing the TCR22.

I wonder if Kel-Tec will file suit against Ruger for the LCP.

This is where there is a difference. The LCP looks entirely different from the P3AT. So trade dress issues don't arise.

Patent issues may apply until the patent expires.

One interesting thing is that small makers have made 10/22 pattern parts and even entire rifles for decades and there weren't any issues. I suspect mainly because the 10/22 wasn't actually in the same market as a $1000 Volquhartsen or Tony Kid rifle.

I wondered when they would get around to suing S&W over that. It just seemed way too much like a copy of the 10-22.

There's nothing wrong with that. There are no valid patents on the 10/22. Trade Dress is more like Copyright in that it is based on appearances. When SR copied the P3AT, they made the LCP look different. So no problems.

Back in the 90s S&W copied the function but not the look of Glock with the first gen Sigma. It was so similar that parts interchanged. Glock still held patents so they sued. S&W had to change the design.

I'm told that one of S&W's lower priced striker fired polymer handguns (I forget the name) has returned to the Glock/Sigma pattern now that all of Glock's core patents have expired.

 

[Deleted member 67409]

This is where there is a difference. The LCP looks entirely different from the P3AT. So trade dress issues don't arise.

Patent issues may apply until the patent expires.

One interesting thing is that small makers have made 10/22 pattern parts and even entire rifles for decades and there weren't any issues. I suspect mainly because the 10/22 wasn't actually in the same market as a $1000 Volquhartsen or Tony Kid rifle.

There's nothing wrong with that. There are no valid patents on the 10/22. Trade Dress is more like Copyright in that it is based on appearances. When SR copied the P3AT, they made the LCP look different. So no problems.

Back in the 90s S&W copied the function but not the look of Glock with the first gen Sigma. It was so similar that parts interchanged. Glock still held patents so they sued. S&W had to change the design.

I'm told that one of S&W's lower priced striker fired polymer handguns (I forget the name) has returned to the Glock/Sigma pattern now that all of Glock's core patents have expired.

That's what I was thinking - the 10/22 is a pretty old design by now, 1964, and I can't imagine there's any patent infringement claim available for Ruger. This would be like Colt suing over the 1911 during the 60s and 70s.

 

[rep308]

My KIDD rifle: RIFLES

Is a direct rip off the 10/22 design. How do they get away with it while S&W is getting sued?

 

[dcmdon]

My KIDD rifle: RIFLES

Is a direct rip off the 10/22 design. How do they get away with it while S&W is getting sued?

The design isn't the issue. At least not the mechanical design. Its the appearance. S&W could argue that the appearance results from the mechanical design, which is no longer protected by any kind of intellectual property law.

I suspect Tactical Solutions, Volquhartsen, and my favorite Tony Kidd were never on the radar because they sell a few thousand $1100 guns per year. Not really Ruger's market. In contrast, S&W has priced their 10/22 very aggressively and is taking business from SR.

 

[Dennis in MA]

So if they put an even uglier stock than a 10/22 and change a few items they are 100% AOK??? This is stupid.

 

[Zappa]

small makers have made 10/22 pattern parts and even entire rifles for decades and there weren't any issues. I suspect mainly because the 10/22 wasn't actually in the same market as a $1000 Volquhartsen or Tony Kid rifle.

Check out this link, it lists most of the known companies that made or still make 10/22 clones:

Ruger 10-22 Clones.

We all have seen the explosion of companies that build the AR-15, but how about the Ruger 10-22. Noticed that there seems to be a lot of folks making them these days. Got me wondering exactly who all makes em'?? AMT used to make a stainless model that can still be found: AMT Lightning...

www.texasguntalk.com

I wonder how many of them got sued ???
Maybe they had licensing deals with Ruger to avoid these lawsuits and T/C didn't ???

 

[tuna]

Meh. I’m still pissed at the hole in revolvers.

Always loved my Rugers though.

 

[Broc]

The design isn't the issue. At least not the mechanical design. Its the appearance. S&W could argue that the appearance results from the mechanical design, which is no longer protected by any kind of intellectual property law.

I suspect Tactical Solutions, Volquhartsen, and my favorite Tony Kidd were never on the radar because they sell a few thousand $1100 guns per year. Not really Ruger's market. In contrast, S&W has priced their 10/22 very aggressively and is taking business from SR.

And all of them are also selling triggers and kits to make the 10/22 better to shoot, so they are helping Ruger.

 

[straightshooterjake]

I certainly do not understand the details of "Trade Dress," which are apparently the legal basis for Ruger's argument. But overall, I can't find much sympathy for Ruger here. The TCR22 is not a cheap look alike for a Ruger 10/22. It is more expensive than the 10/22, and it is better in some aspects that many customers care about. No one can confuse a TCR22 with a Ruger, because it costs significantly more than a basic 10/22, and anyone who did not understand the differences would certainly buy the cheaper Ruger.

If Ruger paid more attention to what the market wants, the TCR22 would never have gotten a toehold.

 

[Qwikdraw45]

Hmmm, $249 for a 10/22, that has a proven history and works, with lots of aftermarket.

$399 for the NKOTB, even though 10/22 parts will fit. For the $150 difference, I'll take the 10/22.

 

[drgrant]

You would have figured that any patent on the 10/22 would have long expired by now? Guess its either extended or something, or some other law protects the design.

-Mike

 

[Frizzle Fry]

Erma was making 10-22 style rifles long before Ruger, with detachable magazines. Winchester and Marlin were doing so with tubular magazines but otherwise barely distinguishable, also long before Ruger - some even had detachable mags... That and the 10-22 was designed a long time ago, I can't imagine there's a patent or other protection in effect. I doubt this will go anywhere.

 

[drgrant]

Erma was making 10-22 style rifles long before Ruger, with detachable magazines. Winchester and Marlin were doing so with tubular magazines but otherwise barely distinguishable, also long before Ruger - some even had detachable mags... That and the 10-22 was designed a long time ago, I can't imagine there's a patent or other protection in effect. I doubt this will go anywhere.

From the sounds of it this is more than just a patent thing though. The patents on that thing had to have died a long ass time ago.

-Mike

 

[krallstar]

Don't all ar15s use the same parts as all other makers. How can they do that.

 

[dhuze]

The trigger group/receivers look nothing alike. As seen in this photo.

 

[dcmdon]

That was sarcasm, right. They look identical.

Because they are identical.

I think the key thing here is that SR can sue anyone they want over this. They would be less motivated to sue Tony Kidd or TacSol or Volqhartsen because they are small volume producers who play in a completely different market than SR. Plus I think there is some symbiosis between a high end maker driving demand for the lower end and vice versa.

But S&W is playing in EXACTLY the market SR plays in. The price comparison above was not accurate because it ignored the fact that SR makes 10/22s in the $400 - 500 range.

The fact that they choose not to sue the small makers doesn't preclude them from suing anyone else.

 

[556USER]

The fact that they choose not to sue the small makers doesn't preclude them from suing anyone else.

I would think that if SR wins this case all they have to do after that is threaten other makers with the same law suit and the smaller outfits will run scared. Time will tell. Kind of like Maura's shadow in their doorway LOL.

SR may consider sales of genuine BX triggers, magazines and such to some of the smaller makers and their customers to be a plus so maybe they won't bother them????

 

[lowbuckbob]

Too many lawyers looking for someone to sue.

 

[Sparky123]

For the average consumer, the question isn't about who copied someone else's design, that's a legal matter that should be decided in court. The real question here is, which .22 rifle is better.

 

[dcmdon]

That's easy. Tony Kidd makes the "best" 10/22 pattern rifle. His triggers, barrels, bolts, and receivers are second to none.

but its also irrelevant.

Too many lawyers looking for someone to sue.

Not the case at all here. SR's (internal) general counsel does what they are told. They aren't "looking for someone to sue". Its not like lawyers in private practice.

I would think that if SR wins this case all they have to do after that is threaten other makers with the same law suit and the smaller outfits will run scared. Time will tell. Kind of like Maura's shadow in their doorway LOL.

SR may consider sales of genuine BX triggers, magazines and such to some of the smaller makers and their customers to be a plus so maybe they won't bother them????

I really don't think they will bother. Again. Volqhartsen/TacSol/Kidd all make $1000 guns. SR makes $250 - $500 guns. Although their custom shop 10/22 is getting up there.

Also, since we're talking about trade dress, rather than actual function. The Kidd and I believe also the TacSol come with an integral Pic rail. So the appearance is quite different. These are some photos of a Kidd I owned. There are a lot of cosmetic details that are very different from a 10/22. Of the topof my head.
1) integral pic rail
2) extended mag release
3) straight trigger blade
4) barrel band
5) machined bolt
6) bolt handle

The reality is that there is no black and white here. Its all a matter of degree because we are talking aoubt appearance. I'm sure SR weighs all this.

Large, wealthy manufacturer making a similarly priced rifle that looks nearly identical = sue
One man shop, making a rifle with many different cosmetic features that sells a rifle that cost 3x the average cost of their rifle = not worth suing.

 

[enbloc]

All this tells me is that the TC22r is deeply cutting into the Ruger 10-22 sales.
What Ruger should do is spend all that litigation money on R&D and bring us a cost-effective .22lr semi auto rifle that will propel us bravely into the 21st Century...

 

[Garys]

Looking on Brownells, I see five different 10/22 receivers, non by Ruger. I'm not sure why they are suing S&W.

 

[Zappa]

All this tells me is that the TC22r is deeply cutting into the Ruger 10-22 sales.
What Ruger should do is spend all that litigation money on R&D and bring us a cost-effective .22lr semi auto rifle that will propel us bravely into the 21st Century...

You can get a plain-jane 10/22 for about $225 right now, sometimes I see them even cheaper. How much further down-market should they go ???

 

[dhuze]

That was sarcasm, right. They look identical.

Because they are identical.

I think the key thing here is that SR can sue anyone they want over this. They would be less motivated to sue Tony Kidd or TacSol or Volqhartsen because they are small volume producers who play in a completely different market than SR. Plus I think there is some symbiosis between a high end maker driving demand for the lower end and vice versa.

But S&W is playing in EXACTLY the market SR plays in. The price comparison above was not accurate because it ignored the fact that SR makes 10/22s in the $400 - 500 range.

The fact that they choose not to sue the small makers doesn't preclude them from suing anyone else.

Yes, that was sarcasm. There is almost no difference between either receiver. This should be in court for about 10 seconds before S&W is ordered to pay up.

It’s more blatant than Springfield stealing the Mauser design.

 

[Coyote33]

What I would be looking for is no plastic!

 

[dcmdon]

You can get a plain-jane 10/22 for about $225 right now, sometimes I see them even cheaper. How much further down-market should they go ???

Its not about moving down market. Its about bringing the features that the aftermarket provides for similar money. Like:

1) a drilled receiver that facilitates cleaning from the breach.
2) a rear receiver tang
3) last round hold open
4) Auto bolt release (normal 10/22 you have to fiddle with a sheet metal release while holding the bolt back to release it.)
5) extended mag release
6) decent sights
7) integral rail
8) improved barrel attachment method.
9) Improved trigger - Ruger's own aftermarket trigger looks to be identical to the factory stock trigger, except with slightly different springs and geometries.)

Many of these things are simply changes in how something is stamped (bolt release) or attached (barrel) and would't cost adime more to manufacture.

 

[Wendell]

CONCORD — A jury could decide this spring whether a rival company illegally made and sold a lookalike of the iconic, New Hampshire-made Ruger 10-22 rifle, after lawyers for Sturm, Ruger & Co. withdrew a request that a judge block sales of a similar rifle. Last week, lawyers for Ruger withdrew their request for a preliminary injunction against Smith & Wesson and sister company, Thompson Center Arms, over the Thompson T/CR22. In doing so, they basically nullified a three-day hearing held late last month at which lawyers battled over whether a judge should block the sale of the Thompson product, which was introduced earlier this year. A trial is now scheduled to begin May 5th.

Smith & Wesson can keep making look-alike Ruger 10-22 for now

CONCORD — A jury could decide this spring whether a rival company illegally made and sold a lookalike of the iconic, New Hampshire-made Ruger 10-22 rifle, after lawyers for Sturm,

www.unionleader.com