Trademark Law: Colt v. Bush 051807

Colt Defense v. Bushmaster Firearms, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, NO. 06-1696 (May 18, 2007):

Issue:
Colt developed a more compact and lightweight M16 for the U.S. Military. In accordance with the U.S. military's naming conventions, the U.S. military called the gun "Model 4" or "M4" for short. Colt registered the trademark "M4." Years went by, and Colt competitors referred to guns of this type as M4s in their advertising. The media tended to use M4 as a descriptive noun to indicate this kind of gun. And consumers seeking to obtain such guns would refer to such guns as M4s. Bushmaster sells an allegedly "M4 type" gun. Colt sued Bushmaster and others for trademark infringement. In the lower court decision, the court found that the name was generic and not entitled to protection. Colt appealed.

Pertinent issue of trademark law:
1) Does a registered trademark defeat -- by virtue of its registration -- a claim of genericness?

Conclusion:
No. Registration of a trademark only creates a rebuttable presumption, not a dispositive answer. In light of the evidence showing genericness, the court affirmed the decision in favor of Bushmaster. Colt had presented a single military document wherein the military used the M4 name interchangeably with "Colt." However, as the military has an exclusive contract with Colt for M4s, the court found that this lone document was insufficient to surmount the evidence in favor of genericness. Colt also argued that the consuming public was simply confused when referring to M4s and was actually trying to invoke the name of Colt. The court found that requests by consumers to the Bushmaster site did not likely seek a Colt firearm when addressing Bushmaster. Genericness ruling affirmed.