In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

Rock Island Armscorp M22 vs Ruger 10/22

fcdlfcdl Member Posts: 158 ✭✭✭
edited June 2014 in Ask the Experts
Hope some can tell me if it is legal to own the subject rifle since Ruger is taking Rock Island to court for copying their 10/22. I know some distributors did receive some and sold some to retail shops. Please help. Thanks. Fred

Comments

  • Options
    tsr1965tsr1965 Member Posts: 8,682 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I can bet Ruger did file suit. They have done it before, too.

    There used to be this company named AMT. They made some 1911 clones, and they also mad a clone of the Ruger MK-II pistol, and the Ruger 10-22 Rifle. Shortly after, like within a couple years, of Ruger filing suit, the company went under.

    I am not sure about the pistols, but the rifles were actually made better than the 10-22. They were ALL stainless, even the receiver, and small parts, excepting the springs. The receiver on the Rugers, were then Aluminum, and the trigger housing was Aluminum also, which today they are polymer. The best part, the AMT's sold for about $25.00 less than the Ruger 10-22, which at the time was around $129.00, while the Ruger was about $160.00-170.00.

    They are collectors items today, if all the box and paperwork are with them, and they are in good condition. I still have two, NIB.

    Best

    EDIT 1

    quote:None of their handguns that I owned or worked on, were reliable from the factory.

    rufe,

    I never owned any 1911's from them, but their Auto Mag-II 22 WMR pistols were JUNK. I never had any problems with the 10-22 clones.
  • Options
    nmyersnmyers Member Posts: 16,881 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The 2 main categories of the law are 1) criminal, & 2) civil.

    Patent infringement comes under civil law. In this case, it's likely between only Ruger & Rock Island. As far as I know, you are not a defendant in this case. If you have one or more of the subject firearm, you do not need to be concerned. I am not a lawyer, but I did sleep in the dumpster behind the courthouse last night.

    If you do not own one, a better question would be: Why would you want to spend good money for a rifle that you know you will not be able to have repaired if you ever have a problem with it?

    Neal
  • Options
    rufe-snowrufe-snow Member Posts: 18,650 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
    I can bet Ruger did file suit. They have done it before, too.

    There used to be this company named AMT. They made some 1911 clones, and they also mad a clone of the Ruger MK-II pistol, and the Ruger 10-22 Rifle. Shortly after, like within a couple years, of Ruger filing suit, the company went under.

    I am not sure about the pistols, but the rifles were actually made better than the 10-22. They were ALL stainless, even the receiver, and small parts, excepting the springs. The receiver on the Rugers, were then Aluminum, and the trigger housing was Aluminum also, which today they are polymer. The best part, the AMT's sold for about $25.00 less than the Ruger 10-22, which at the time was around $129.00, while the Ruger was about $160.00-170.00.

    They are collectors items today, if all the box and paperwork are with them, and they are in good condition. I still have two, NIB.

    Best



    AMT made their stainless "Lightning" clones, of Ruger .22 rifles and pistols for years. As far as I remember, starting in the 80's. Ruger might have sued them? But what really put them out of business, was their crap quality control and materials. Although their guns were made out of stainless steel, it wasn't of the proper hardness/heat treatment? None of their handguns that I owned or worked on, were reliable from the factory.

    I was in the business back then. Even with Ruger sueing AMT. No legal action, was instituted against the owners or retailers of the AMT clones. That I'm aware of.
  • Options
    Bill DeShivsBill DeShivs Member Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I seriously doubt there are any active patents on the 10-22 design, therefore lawsuits would be invalid. The 10-22 design is quite old.
  • Options
    machine gun moranmachine gun moran Member Posts: 5,198
    edited November -1
    Patents obviously have a limited life, but I don't know what it is. Were it not true, Smith & Wesson could still exclusively own the breech-loading revolver business, and Ithaca could never have sold the M37 (the Remington patents that Ithaca used on the M37 expired in February of 1937, and were not renewable). I used to think that a mechanical patent was good for 7 years, and was renewable twice, giving the item protection for 21 years. Ruger 10/22's have been in production since Pope Celestine II was in office, but maybe the patent laws have changed.

    Regarding parts/repairs, the Philippinos probably geared the guns for parts interchangeability, which would also serve to orient the guns towards the huge amount of aftermarket mod parts that are available.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
  • Options
    rufe-snowrufe-snow Member Posts: 18,650 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by machine gun moran
    Patents obviously have a limited life, but I don't know what it is. Were it not true, Smith & Wesson could still exclusively own the breech-loading revolver business, and Ithaca could never have sold the M37 (the Remington patents that Ithaca used on the M37 expired in February of 1937, and were not renewable). I used to think that a mechanical patent was good for 7 years, and was renewable twice, giving the item protection for 21 years. Ruger 10/22's have been in production since Pope Celestine II was in office, but maybe the patent laws have changed.

    Regarding parts/repairs, the Philippinos probably geared the guns for parts interchangeability, which would also serve to orient the guns towards the huge amount of aftermarket mod parts that are available.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out.



    Not quite that old.[:D] They hit the street, couple of years after I got out of the service. Just before we got suckered into Viet Nam, probably 64?
  • Options
    BigLoop22BigLoop22 Member Posts: 620 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Gents,

    The lawsuit is for "trademark infringement":

    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/29/ruger-sues-armscor-ria-ruger-1022-clone/

    quote:Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Armscor Precision International, Inc. et al
    Court:New Hampshire District Court
    Defendant: Arms Corporation of the Philippines, Armscor Precision International, Inc. and Rock Island Armory Exports, Inc.
    Plaintiff: Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.
    Case Number: 1:2014cv00194
    Filed: May 2, 2014
    Office: Concord Office
    Nature of Suit: Trademark
    Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
    Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff


    +++++++++

    *************
  • Options
    machine gun moranmachine gun moran Member Posts: 5,198
    edited November -1
    Unless Armscor is actually using a Ruger trademark - the name 'Sturm, Ruger' or the stylized eagle in a circle - I think this may come back to bite Ruger in the *. Apparently, Ruger is mounting a challenge because the Armscor product looks like the Ruger product. If Ruger hasn't noticed, their 1911's also look like Colt 1911's, and their Vaquero looks like...well,...

    And Ruger wants a jury. What if Aldo Uberti and somebody from Mauser are on it, LOL.
  • Options
    fcdlfcdl Member Posts: 158 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks for everyone's comments. It appears that Ruger can copy other items but does not want anyone to copy theirs (1911, LCP, etc.). I also understand differences in Patent and Infringment. I still do not see any legal problems with a private citizen owning this M22. I don't think Ruger has a leg to stand on for their legal activity. I guess we just wait and see.
  • Options
    GeriGeri Member Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    What about MOA products?
  • Options
    GeriGeri Member Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
  • Options
    tsr1965tsr1965 Member Posts: 8,682 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    There are several companies out there that market the 10-22 style recievers. All with some sort of modification, that goes around the patent. Volquartsen, Magnum Research, Tactical Solutions, are just to name a few.

    Best
  • Options
    beantownshootahbeantownshootah Member Posts: 12,776 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by fcdl
    Hope some can tell me if it is legal to own the subject rifle since Ruger is taking Rock Island to court for copying their 10/22. I know some distributors did receive some and sold some to retail shops. Please help. Thanks. Fred


    Absolutely legal for YOU to own this gun.

    I'm surprised this is even a question.

    There are two possible issues here.

    If Rugers 10-22 patent were still valid, then Ruger could sue for patent infringement. But as mentioned, the 10-22 was designed in 1964. Patents are valid for 20 years now. So the patent on these Ruger guns expired decades ago, explaining why there are any number of companies selling exact replica guns, all manner of drop in parts, etc.

    Note that even if Armscor violated Ruger's patent (which they didn't), YOU could still legally own one of these infringing guns. You're not the one who violated the patent! Depending on the nature of the patent in question, it might be possible in some cases for a patent holder to get an injunction against a patent infringer using the patent technology, but I don't think that sort of thing could/would apply here.

    Apparently the suit is about trademark infringement; ie Armscor copying some Ruger trademark, like its Eagle logo, or such.

    Not knowing the details, I can't comment on the merits of the suit in question, but from what I gather, the trademark infringement is that Armscor's version of the 10-22 *LOOKS* like Rugers.

    If that's the case, I suspect Ruger is going to have a pretty hard time defending this trademark. (IE what exactly is the distinguishing feature here that makes Ruger's gun different? Why hasn't Ruger defended this supposed "trademark" in the 20+ years people have been making knockoffs?) If this is really just about appearance, Armscor could just alter the appearance of its guns, and sell the exact same parts-compatible ones if it liked.

    In any case, regardless of the merits of this suit, this is a CIVIL matter between Ruger and Armscor, with Armscor allegedly the trademark infringer. Individuals who merely own Armscor guns haven't violated the trademark and shouldn't be held liable.

    As a matter of practice, there is no way for Ruger to even know that you own a gun like this, short of you telling them!
Sign In or Register to comment.