Surefire vs AAC Lawsuit?

General silencer discussion. If you want to talk about a specific silenced rifle or pistol, it is best to do that in the rifle or pistol section for that brand.

All NFA laws apply.

Moderators: mpallett, renegade, bakerjw

Doink67
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:01 pm
Location: VA

Post by Doink67 » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:36 am

Kevin/AAC wrote:They have a lot of smart guys in their light dept.
but not in their silencer dept
[quote="Blaubart"]I'd love to screw with a boss like yours Steve.[/quote]

Flanntastic
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:01 am

Post by Flanntastic » Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:38 pm

seems all you can makers are lawsuit happy, cough, cough

User avatar
pneumagger
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:09 am
Location: N.E. Ohio

Post by pneumagger » Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:54 pm

Kevin/AAC wrote:They have a lot of smart guys in their light dept.
Too bad the suppressor guys aren't very bright.
I reject your truths and substitute my own realities

User avatar
Selectedmarksman
Silencertalk Goon Squad
Posts: 6635
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:16 am
Location: KY

Post by Selectedmarksman » Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:41 am

Not to go off topic, but didn't Surefire have a sub-forum here but never post? :roll:

User avatar
Conqueror
Elite Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: RTP, NC

Post by Conqueror » Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:30 pm

Shame, I liked when Surefire came to the AAC shoots. They let me play with their cans and even supplied some of the ammo I shot. I doubt they will ever attend again.

This does call into question the way that AAC invites every manufacturer to the Shoot. Obviously if you are ripping up their cans on the internet and in print, they will be disinclined to attend.

User avatar
ArevaloSOCOM
Silencertalk Goon Squad
Posts: 17511
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:22 am
Location: London, England
Contact:

Post by ArevaloSOCOM » Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:10 pm

Conqueror wrote:Shame, I liked when Surefire came to the AAC shoots. They let me play with their cans and even supplied some of the ammo I shot. I doubt they will ever attend again.

This does call into question the way that AAC invites every manufacturer to the Shoot. Obviously if you are ripping up their cans on the internet and in print, they will be disinclined to attend.
It makes no difference.

Even befoer the shoot silencer companies really couldn't get along.

That's why they won't all get together and do DB ratings.

Others have to do it for them.......
NFAtalk.org

User avatar
MisterWilson
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:42 pm

Post by MisterWilson » Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:22 pm

:?
Last edited by MisterWilson on Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Your Mom.

User avatar
Conqueror
Elite Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: RTP, NC

Post by Conqueror » Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:24 pm

The AAC haters are easy to spot:

When AAC sued someone to uphold their reputation, AAC were made out to be the bad guys.

When Surefire sued AAC to uphold their reputation, somehow AAC are still the bad guys.

User avatar
Selectedmarksman
Silencertalk Goon Squad
Posts: 6635
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:16 am
Location: KY

Post by Selectedmarksman » Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:17 am

One would hope all Surefire would need to do would be produce a better product than AAC to beat them in sales despite AAC's ads. At the very least, they could try to counter with ads of their own. Going straight to court seems uncool to me.

User avatar
rob_s
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3461
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:33 pm
Location: SE FL

Post by rob_s » Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:50 am

Conqueror wrote:The AAC haters are easy to spot:

When AAC sued someone to uphold their reputation, AAC were made out to be the bad guys.

When Surefire sued AAC to uphold their reputation, somehow AAC are still the bad guys.
I don't know that that is true. I have no real opinion on the Surefire lawsuit (although it doesn't surprise me a bit and I thought it was kind of inevitable), but I think suing someone over forum posts is pretty silly.

I still like AAC products and recommend them all the time, and would be buying an M42K today if I was starting my SBR/suppressor host gun from scratch.
WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET

User avatar
noiseless
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by noiseless » Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:53 am

"If the truth is on your side, argue facts, if not, argue procedure"
[b]Sharp Knives and Quiet Guns[/b]

Inside Sales - Advanced Armament Corp.
770-925-9988 (phone)
770-925-9989 (fax)
[email protected]
www.aacblog.com
www.advanced-armament.com

User avatar
bakerjw
Elite Member
Posts: 3611
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:13 am
Location: NE Tenn.

Post by bakerjw » Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:48 am

I've seen the pic and could tell immediately that the silencer on the right had not been fired and the silencer on the right had not been fired. Not being an expert on who makes what, I could never tell you that one was AAC and the other was not. I am all about Form 1 homemade silencers.

I think that AAC should have used a picture of both sets of internals without one being fired to the point of failure. For me it would have been a slam dunk as the AAC welds appear to be far superior to the spot welded process.
July 5th, 2016. The day that we moved from a soft tyranny to a hard tyranny.

User avatar
DRW1006
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: U.S.A

Post by DRW1006 » Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:47 pm

SF = GREAT lights.

AAC = GREAT Silencers.


Guess where I stand in this?
If I won't say it to your face, I promise I won't type it to you on this forum.
Why a silencer? So I don't wake up the kids when I shoot an intruder.

User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33986
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:39 pm

April 13, 2009

SureFire LLC denied Preliminary Injunction against AAC.


SureFire LLC had filed a lawsuit claiming false advertising, by way of the Lanham Act.

A United States District Judge denied their motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Here are some quotes:

Whether The Statements Were Deceptive – Per the above reasoning, the Court finds that SureFire has not shown a likelihood that it will succeed on this element of the claim. Because SureFire has not successfully demonstrated a likelihood that AAC's advertisement was deceptive, it is unnecessary to consider this element of the Lanham Act.

The Court again reiterates that SureFire has not made a strong showing that the advertisement contains false statements, the advertising misleads consumers, or that it will suffer injury as a result of the advertisement.

The Court finds that SureFire has not shown a robust likelihood of success...

Here is the full document:

http://www.silencertalk.com/docs/SF.PDF

User avatar
paco ramirez
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 4676
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:49 pm
Location: Artesia, NM

Post by paco ramirez » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:40 pm

:D
CGS Group LLC
Silencers, firing devices/initiators/detonators, and custom precision rifles.

www.cgsgroup.com
[email protected]

User avatar
kalikraven
Elite Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: Florida

Post by kalikraven » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:41 pm

Cool. :D
Going a little more discrete here due to some of my opinions...

User avatar
dfire
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: FL
Contact:

Post by dfire » Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:13 pm

Ha HA !!! Sweet !
Don't look at me with that tone of voice !

User avatar
ArevaloSOCOM
Silencertalk Goon Squad
Posts: 17511
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:22 am
Location: London, England
Contact:

Post by ArevaloSOCOM » Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:35 pm

Does this mean you'll start runnning the ad again?
NFAtalk.org

User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33986
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk » Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:37 pm

I think we should move on to feature other things like pistol suppressors.

Raines/762-SD
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 674
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:36 pm
Location: BRLA & NOLA

Post by Raines/762-SD » Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:44 pm

Sweet, now recoup you're lawyers fees from Surefire, and put it into the black box, so we can all get one of those bad mofo's..
LSU Football National Champs
1908, 1958, 2003, 2007

User avatar
Conqueror
Elite Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: RTP, NC

Post by Conqueror » Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:05 pm

Just finished the ruling document. It seems that the ruling depends heavily on whether Surefire could prove that the pictured silencer was identifiable as its own. The judge says "no" but I don't think it's nearly so clear-cut. I and numerous others here and on other websites were immediately able to identify it as a Surefire silencer, and other photos Robert has posted of the defunct core make it clear that the photo was not hybridized and is, in fact, both a Surefire tube and a Surefire core.
[b]Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?[/b]

Raines/762-SD
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 674
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:36 pm
Location: BRLA & NOLA

Post by Raines/762-SD » Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:16 pm

Conqueror wrote:Just finished the ruling document. It seems that the ruling depends heavily on whether Surefire could prove that the pictured silencer was identifiable as its own. The judge says "no" but I don't think it's nearly so clear-cut. I and numerous others here and on other websites were immediately able to identify it as a Surefire silencer, and other photos Robert has posted of the defunct core make it clear that the photo was not hybridized and is, in fact, both a Surefire tube and a Surefire core.
to me it sounds more like its known that its a surefire can, but that AAC is trying to bend facts in their favor for marketing..
LSU Football National Champs
1908, 1958, 2003, 2007

User avatar
noiseless
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by noiseless » Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:16 pm

Good
[b]Sharp Knives and Quiet Guns[/b]

Inside Sales - Advanced Armament Corp.
770-925-9988 (phone)
770-925-9989 (fax)
[email protected]
www.aacblog.com
www.advanced-armament.com

User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33986
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:31 am
Location: USA

Post by silencertalk » Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:18 pm

No. Page 6, line 16.

"The Court Finds that AAC's alleged statements were not literally false on their face [with or without knowing if it was SureFire] or by necessary implication [if it was known as SureFire]."

Page 7, line 15.

"However, SureFire fails to provide evidence that the advertisement's implicit messages are false."

This is independent of who the "competitive" suppressor is.

Image

User avatar
ArevaloSOCOM
Silencertalk Goon Squad
Posts: 17511
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:22 am
Location: London, England
Contact:

Post by ArevaloSOCOM » Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:02 am

Conqueror wrote:Just finished the ruling document. It seems that the ruling depends heavily on whether Surefire could prove that the pictured silencer was identifiable as its own. The judge says "no" but I don't think it's nearly so clear-cut. I and numerous others here and on other websites were immediately able to identify it as a Surefire silencer, and other photos Robert has posted of the defunct core make it clear that the photo was not hybridized and is, in fact, both a Surefire tube and a Surefire core.

"However, SureFire fails to provide evidence that the advertisement's implicit messages are false."
NFAtalk.org

Post Reply