but not in their silencer deptKevin/AAC wrote:They have a lot of smart guys in their light dept.
Surefire vs AAC Lawsuit?
Moderators: mpallett, mr fixit, bakerjw, renegade
-
- Member
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:01 am
- pneumagger
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 3455
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:09 am
- Location: N.E. Ohio
- Selectedmarksman
- Silencertalk Goon Squad
- Posts: 6633
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:16 am
- Location: KY
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.
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.
- ArevaloSOCOM
- Silencertalk Goon Squad
- Posts: 17511
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:22 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
It makes no difference.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.
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
- MisterWilson
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 1089
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:42 pm
- Selectedmarksman
- Silencertalk Goon Squad
- Posts: 6633
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:16 am
- Location: KY
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.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 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
"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
Inside Sales - Advanced Armament Corp.
770-925-9988 (phone)
770-925-9989 (fax)
[email protected]
www.aacblog.com
www.advanced-armament.com
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.
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.
- silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
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
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
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 4679
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:49 pm
- Location: Artesia, NM
- kalikraven
- Elite Member
- Posts: 2944
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:48 pm
- Location: Florida
- ArevaloSOCOM
- Silencertalk Goon Squad
- Posts: 17511
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:22 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
- silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 12:36 pm
- Location: BRLA & NOLA
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]
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 12:36 pm
- Location: BRLA & NOLA
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..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.
LSU Football National Champs
1908, 1958, 2003, 2007
1908, 1958, 2003, 2007
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
Inside Sales - Advanced Armament Corp.
770-925-9988 (phone)
770-925-9989 (fax)
[email protected]
www.aacblog.com
www.advanced-armament.com
- silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
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.
"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.
- ArevaloSOCOM
- Silencertalk Goon Squad
- Posts: 17511
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:22 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
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