Re: Surefire Cans
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The case is not over, and as far as the 1500 rounds they used 3 different weapons w/ the same suppressor! Do yourself a favor and read before you run your mouth! Right now you are really hurting your cause!!! You may even excercise your right to take the 5th as it may be more beneficial for you!!!
</div></div>
Again,
<span style="font-style: italic">Santa Ana, CA – <span style="font-weight: bold">The court denied Surefire’s preliminary injunction motion and silenced its attempt to shoot down Advanced Armament’s silencer advertising.</span>. The court quickly pointed out that the accused advertisement doesn’t make any reference to Surefire and the pictured suppressor is not readily identifiable as a Surefire product. Surefire must be questioning its decision to file a lawsuit that – unlike the advertisement at issue – unequivocally identified its product as the one pictured in the advertisement <span style="font-weight: bold">and brought more attention to it than the advertisement itself</span>. Indeed, <span style="font-weight: bold">Surefire submitted discussions from weapon forums that referenced the lawsuit and the advertisement at issue</span>.
The alleged four false statements at issue were: “(1) the SureFire suppressor shown uses spot welds; (2) SureFire’s spot welds are not as strong as the fusion welds used by AAC; (3) SureFire’s spot welds are likely to fail during normal semi-automatic and full-automatic firings; and (4) AAC’s suppressors are more durable than suppressors like the SureFire suppressor shown.” <span style="font-weight: bold">The court determined that the statements were not literally false on their face </span>or by necessary implication because the suppressor cannot be positively identified as Surefire’s. As a result, the court also found that <span style="text-decoration: underline">Surefire could not evidence actual injury because the non-comparative statements cause injury to all competitors and “none is more likely to suffer from the offending broadcasts than any other.”</span> Thus, <span style="font-weight: bold">Surefire could not show a likelihood of success on the merits </span>or significant hardship if the preliminary injunction was not granted. The case is SureFire, LLC v. Advanced Armament Corp., SACV 08-1405 DOC (C.D. Cal. 2008).</span>
<span style="font-style: italic">Santa Ana, CA – Gun suppressor manufacturer SureFire, LLC filed a false advertising lawsuit, in the Central District of California (Santa Ana Division), against Advanced Armament Corp. (“AAC”), details blogged here. Returning fire, AAC then filed its own false advertising counterclaim (copy available here) alleging that <span style="font-weight: bold">SureFire’s representation that its suppressors could withstand the continuous firing of 1,5000 rounds without failure is false and no tests were conducted to support the statements</span>.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"However, <span style="font-weight: bold">SureFire fails to provide evidence that the advertisement's implicit messages are false</span>."</div></div>
<span style="text-decoration: underline">The case is over...............SF lost. </span>
So you actually belive that the SF is 6X better than the KAC can then as well, bc they talk about how the KAC can is only good for 5K rounds, but the SF is good for 30K.