Question on the Harrott's decision

[Mute]

Please refresh my memory. In the summary of the judgement, wasn't it the courts conclusion that adding items to the list required specific model names and not just, "manufacturer's name, all models?"

If so, how would that affect items that were added previous to the decision using that same method for naming?

[bwiese]

Not quite.

It did say "make and model".

There is some handwaving as to Kasler-listed items like "DPMS Panther (all)". Currently, the left hand of the DOJ says this may be legal, while the right hand is questioning it.

When my little birdies hear more, I may be able to write more intelligently and in more about this.

For now, you should not rely on this for legal protection, it's too close. While specificity of listing is required, it could end up in a long argument, appeals, etc.

And this does NOT apply to Roberti-Roos items. "Uzi and Galil" are not further identified by model so these cut with a broad swath. Another Harrott-style case will likely be required to clean these up.

[xenophobe]

Please refresh my memory. In the summary of the judgement, wasn't it the courts conclusion that adding items to the list required specific model names and not just, "manufacturer's name, all models?"

If so, how would that affect items that were added previous to the decision using that same method for naming?

It stated that the "series" language was not sufficient and that make and model must be specified. It did not comment on the (all) language.

[Mute]

Not quite.

For now, you should not rely on this for legal protection, it's too close. While specificity of listing is required, it could end up in a long argument, appeals, etc.


Naw! Wouldn't even consider it. I'm just curious as to how it might affect those with Kalser listed lowers.

[artherd]

The (all) language is probally not legal, proving so could cost $hundreds of thousands.