TTORA Forum banner

Ho De Hum... Anyone else see this yet?

6K views 27 replies 17 participants last post by  ike 
#1 ·
#2 ·
From reading the trademark claim, it revolves primarily around the "2-piece kickout design". Make it 1 piece or 3 pieces and I would think you would be in the clear. There are plenty of ways to build a similar product without intentionally infringing on IP rights. The guy even said AP and White Knuckle are not currently infringing on their mark, they have both have a 1 piece design with a kickout.
 
#5 ·
Its also interesting to note that the lawyers Metal-Tech retained are very high profile. Klarquist Sparkman has represented companies like Microsoft, Freightliner and GE to name a few. So you can assume Metal-Tech is forking over a hefty percentage of the settlement and licensing fees to their lawyers. The TM was filed in Dec 2009 and granted in Aug 2011. First claim I saw was White Knuckle in Nov 2011 and now Demello in Feb 2012. Not sure who else out there has a similar 2-piece kickout, but anybody that does should be on notice that they are next in line to receive a lawsuit or at least a cease and desist order.
 
#7 ·
Is it just me, or does the kick out look nothing like the Metal-Tech? It goes all the way to the main body, and has a support right in the front. Am I just being naive, or is someone just getting butthurt because another two piece design came out? I understand that they were the first to do the two piece design, but does as long as it doesn't copy the thing spec for spec, then Demello should be in the clear, right?

Edit: Never mind. I see where Metal cage is mad now....... damn slow ass government computers........
 
#8 ·
In November 2011 Metal-Tech also sued White Knuckle for the same thing. But in January the case was dismissed by Metal-Tech for whatever reason.

In the current case vs. Demello, from what I can see Demello has not answered the complaint. Normally a defendant has 21 days to respond or the plaintiff can request a default judgment. However, I'm sure his attorneys are handling it and hopefully the case will be dropped and both can move on.
 
#9 ·
I have never even heard of Metal-Tech, shows what I know, haha.

That being said. Metal-Tech should be careful, I imagine if Demello wins, they can file a civil suit against Metal-Tech for damages and court costs.
 
#13 ·
Dude for someone who recently needed comments they had made deleted out of a thread in which they had started bad enough to warrant a personal phone call, you sure do like biting the hand that feeds you. But I guess sweeping your mess under the rug is alright in your book though.
 
#16 ·
It's a pretty lame TM anyhow..
MT sells a from outpost that happens to look very similar to the Demello slider in question.. I guess if you can't sell enough of your brand slider then sue the competition and then produce their slider because sales was better..
Sounds logical..
 
#17 ·
Whoever gave them the TM should be fired, that's like trying to say that you came up with the square tube rear bumper. Not that I would have bought anything from MT but now definitely not. This is like 2 kids fighting over a swing in the playground. Kickouts are F'n ugly. Looks like Mr.D ignored the cease and desist letters. Drama
 
#18 ·
So, will Allpro be suing all of them now since they were the first to come out with the 'kick-out' design...well over a decade ago...
what a ridiculous joke on MT's part.
 
#19 ·
Agreed, All pro was the first thing that came into my mind. Maybe someone should give john a heads up maybe he can make some money (joking), not that I'm a huge DO fan (way overpriced and doesn't respect repeat business) but if metal tech is hurting that bad that they have to take this route then they shouldn't charge the ridiculous prices they do on their site. Guess all the exposure they get in 4WDTO has gone to their head.
 
#20 ·
All-pro sliders are ok because the kickout doesn't reconnect to main tube. Apparently that is the TM. In a sense that would qualify any nerf bar with a welded in step.

How does a company like MT, who started by copying other ideas like tube bumpers, rock rails and tube doors turn around and TM their design so nobody else can make anything similar.
 
#21 ·
Also if they came out with the idea in 2004 and pictures surfaced around 2006 their design team or production team needs some major help unless this was a lie to help with getting a TM?
So they finally get to production in 06 and don't file/register until 2009. That means they slider was out in the public for 3 years to be replicated befar any action was taken. 5 years if the 2004 version pops it that would put it in public for 5 years. Sounds like a case of jealousy
 
#24 ·
You guys are missing the fact that this is a TRADEMARK, not a PATENT. Very similar in protocol, but also different at the same time. However Metal-Tech is using the Trademark in a fashion like that of a patent. I'm assuming this was because they knew they couldn't get a patent so they went with a Trademark, and now file IP rights claims against their Trademark the same way one would expect if the infringed on a patent. So in that regards, it is a dirty way of using the system.
 
#25 ·
and I hope they lose and lose big. What a chicken-shit way to do business.:mad: Personally I would boycott them for this bullshit and suggest all here do the same.
 
#26 ·
Interesting.... so will MT go file against CBI next?


Honestly I am surprised this does not happen more often.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top