U2 Clone - Of Course it's Illegal

Status
Not open for further replies.

aurich_

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
37
Location
Germany
Pax et Lux said:
I once heard that, in relation to antiques, a reproduction becomes a fake when it is sold as an original. . .

However I personally believe this light was manufactured with a particular target market: the vermin that are pushing fakes on Ebay.

And yes, it is a matter of morality. And yes, I don't intend buying lights from such suppliers.

Whatever we think about it in relation to CPF, the moral of the story is never, never buy a U2 off Ebay.

second that

h

and in germany it is not making a difference whether they say: U2 lookalike, would still be illegal based on the outer appearance alone, just like a fake rolex bought in turkey or a fake casio bought in bangkok or hong kong.
german customs will check any casio or rolex for authenticity (based on agreements) at the company when you try to import them.....
 
Last edited:

Phredd

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
510
Location
New Hampshire
curtis22 said:
Are you sure? Can you find it at uspto.gov ?

Kind of ironic that you, after your comment to me, keep harping on whether or not Surefire has patents or trademarks. I've counted 4 posts from you asking these questions. What's your point anyway? First of all, I give Surefire more credit than to think they "overlooked" filing trademarks, but are you attempting to justify the creation and sale of this obvious clone?
 

LightScene

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 12, 2003
Messages
939
Re: U2 Clone - Illegal

270winchester said:
see the thread in reviews. do a search before you call people ignorant.
I used the word "If" to avoid making such a mistake. The original poster has an obligation to make his point without ambiguity. He simply made assertions without links to any evidence supporting his views. Somebody else contradicted his assertion, so there was some doubt as to whether he knew what he was talking about. It's not up to me to do his research for him.
 

Brighteyez

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
3,963
Location
San Jose, CA
I know you guys don't want to post links to promote access to these lights, but my question is:

How are these lights getting into the U.S.? Are they being shipped in under the nose of US Customs, or is this one of the internet sales things where they're sneaked into the country one at a time though the mails?

While I have nothing but distaste for this kind of garbage (and I'll bet that it's of trashy quality as well,) I guess that there is a market for these lights, as some people will want them to go with the Rolex that they got off of eBay for $9.99 plus $200 shipping and handling :) .
 
Last edited:

curtis22

Enlightened
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
201
Phredd said:
Kind of ironic that you, after your comment to me, keep harping on whether or not Surefire has patents or trademarks. I've counted 4 posts from you asking these questions. /QUOTE]

Yep. My posts were completely off subject. I apologize.
 

metalhed

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
671
Location
Washington State
curtis22 said:
Are you sure? Can you find it at uspto.gov ?

Don't need to.

State laws cover trademark disputes as well as the federal courts. There is no need to 'register', although it does make things easier for the plaintiff, I believe. Under most states unfair competition statutes, using the known mark of another (or their design) to sell the same type of product is regarded as a violation.

It doesn't hurt that there are federal trademark listings for Surefire's associated products like batteries. One would have a hard time arguing, in a state court, that Surefire hadn't established a right to the name in regards to flashlights.

So my contentions stands. This is an illegal and/or infringing use of the Surefire name and logo.
 

Art Vandelay

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
1,550
I thought this was a cool light, but when they added the Surefire label, they moved from knockoff to counterfeit. Just admitting the items for sale are counterfeit does not make them legal. I doubt they limit these to one per household, so you know some people are buying these for resale.

It's easy to say "who cares" if you do not personally Know anybody getting ripped off. If a well intentioned kid or wife of a CPF member gets ripped off buying him a "Surefire", then maybe we will see some more outrage.
 
Last edited:

LEDcandle

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
1,943
Location
Mushroom S'pore
I for one could use a couple of knockoffs here and there but outright counterfeits right down to copying the logo and name is too blatant. Thumbs down from me :thumbsdow
 

Brighteyez

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
3,963
Location
San Jose, CA
Are there more stringent laws in Singapore about people buying/possessing counterfeits?

LEDcandle said:
I for one could use a couple of knockoffs here and there but outright counterfeits right down to copying the logo and name is too blatant. Thumbs down from me :thumbsdow
 

curtis22

Enlightened
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
201
metalhed said:
Don't need to.

State laws cover trademark disputes as well as the federal courts. There is no need to 'register', although it does make things easier for the plaintiff, I believe. Under most states unfair competition statutes, using the known mark of another (or their design) to sell the same type of product is regarded as a violation.

It doesn't hurt that there are federal trademark listings for Surefire's associated products like batteries. One would have a hard time arguing, in a state court, that Surefire hadn't established a right to the name in regards to flashlights.

So my contentions stands. This is an illegal and/or infringing use of the Surefire name and logo.
It just bothers me that you guys keep moving the goal post. (not you specifically).

First there was an alleged patent violation. [It apperars not.] No evidence presented.

Then there was an alleged trademark violation. [Still no evidence just unsubstantiated "state" trademark claims from someone that thought one of the fifty states might have a trademark registered]

Anyone else?
 

Unforgiven

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 26, 2002
Messages
3,256
Location
Missouri, U.S.A.
This thread is about copyright rather than LED's so it has been move it to the Café.

This thread must remain civil or it will be close and must be be taken to the Underground to be continued.

Unforgiven
 

mdocod

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,544
Location
COLORado spRINGs
personally, I'm a huge fan of budget lights. I can't afford Surefire, So I buy knockoffs.. Like the Brinkman Maxfire compared to the Surefire G2, similar function and idea, but the design is different enough and there is no infringement on the naming, so buying the brinkman doesn't leave me feeling guilty. this U2 clone, is shameful. I could never knowingly buy something that blatantly rips off another brands name in this manner. sad stuff really.
 

Knifemaster

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
92
The only bad guy in this is Surefire because they are ripping off their consumers. It is quite obvious because of this clone that their light can be produced and sold at a fraction of what they are charging their consumers. Who ever is the manufacturer of the clone is like Robin Hood he should be admired for exposing Surefire for the price gougers that they are, not looked down on. The only people bitter about this are Surefire owners who let themselves be taken by company willing to milk it's consumers. Yes they make a good product but not good enough to justify their prices.

:touche:
 
Last edited:

tenfour

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
148
Location
Seattle WA
I'd like to chime in here and say that I was extremely surprised to see they put the surefire logo on the light itself. DealExtreme should definitely take this light off their inventory. "Building off" or "deriving from" the design is morally ambiguous as it is - stealing the name is just outright wrong.

I am certainly not promoting the purchase of this light through my review of the light. I bought it, as did many others already, and i intend on using it despite the story of how it came into my hands.:whistle:

Most importantly, I would *never* dream of passing this thing off as a real U2.

I agree that regardless of the LAW, this is WRONG. Now coming up with a solution to it is a much more complex situation!

As to the question "how are they getting through customs"...

The package was sent directly from hong kong. the customs declaration
stamp simply says "LED Flashlight and Computer Hub" as a "Gift", and some scribble for a signature...
 

metalhed

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
671
Location
Washington State
curtis22-- Perhaps you should read this "Overview of US Trademark Law posted at Harvard University's website.

I believe it makes it clear that registration of a trademark isn't necessary to take someone to court over a perceived infringement. It only effects the ease with which one can make a case.
 

Brighteyez

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
3,963
Location
San Jose, CA
I thought it was just a typo, but since you spelled it consistently, I'll presume it's what you meant. So is this costumer the person that outfitted Paul Kim at the Surefire CPF party in Orlando? :lolsign:

Knifemaster said:
The only bad guy in this is Surefire because they are ripping off their costumers.
 

Brighteyez

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
3,963
Location
San Jose, CA
Thanks! I found the original link, I should have looked before I asked.
And no, I wouldn't even think of ordering it. I've got enough useless Chinese flashlights, including some from companies that are thought of highly on this site.

Insofar as the vendor, I wouldn't do business with them when they were using a mail front in Blaine WA, I certainly wouldn't bother with them in Hong Kong. Especially when their name keeps changing every couple of months :D

tenfour said:
The package was sent directly from hong kong. the customs declaration
stamp simply says "LED Flashlight and Computer Hub" as a "Gift", and some scribble for a signature...
 

metalhed

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
671
Location
Washington State
Unforgiven said:
This thread is about copyright rather than LED's so it has been move it to the Café.

This thread must remain civil or it will be close and must be be taken to the Underground to be continued.

Unforgiven


I'm not trying to interfere with a moderating decision or anything, but this thread is not about copyright. It is about a company selling a product that appears to infringe the trademark(s) of another company that happens to actively support CPF.

I can understand that it may not fit the 'General Flashlight - LED' category very well, but it is hardly an 'off-topic' discussion. And I am afraid that many will miss the important issues that are being discussed in this thread if it is relegated to 'The Cafe'. Could it be moved to the 'General Flashlight Discussion' section instead?

I know it's a tough call, especially when folks are letting their emotions into their posts. Whatever you decide is fine, I just wanted to mention a different possible location for this thread.
 

ABTOMAT

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
2,936
Location
MA, USA
Knifemaster said:
The only bad guy in this is Surefire because they are ripping off their costumers. It is quite obvious because of this clone that their light can be produced and sold at a fraction of what they are charging their costumers. Who ever is the manufacturer of the clone is like Robin Hood he should be admired for exposing Surefire for the price gougers that they are, not looked down on. The only people bitter about this are Surefire owners who let themselves be taken by company willing to milk it's costumers. Yes they make a good product but not good enough to justify their prices.

:touche:

I think Surefire's stuff is a little overpriced, but you're way off base there. Surefire has to recover the costs of their R&D, engineering, and industrial design in each light sold. They use name-brand components from the original makers who also have to pay those costs. They make their flashlights in the US, in a small facility, and (I'm assuming) legal Americans to do the work. And from what I've seen of off-brand imported flashlights, Surefire also uses higher quality materials and production.

The no-name Chinese factories making this U2 fake have none of those costs. Development and design cost them nothing, since SF already did it. They use no-name components produced the same way, and it doesn't have the same features as a real U2. The lights are probably mass-produced by an industrial plant. They likely use inferior materials. And everything from shop space to fuel to food to manpower is far cheaper in China than on the US West Coast.

If you wanted Surefire to cut costs and operate the same way there would be no Surefire! There would be no U2, no 6P, no Beast, and none of their other products because there wouldn't be anyone to come up with ideas. All they'd be doing is making poor copies of other companies' products.

So if you think the knockoff factories are showing Surefire how it should be done, then think about living in a world where Surefire's entire product line is copies of Mag-Lites--since Surefire is the one who invented the lithium tactical light. It's like any other product.

Most of a product's cost isn't in the materials or assembly, it's in the development behind it. The price of an item sold by the original maker will only come down when the overhead has been paid for, and enough items have been sold to make a profit. Mag-Lite is an example. If you factor in inflation their prices have actually fallen in the last 25 years. That's because they've sold huge numbers, haven't done much R&D (other than the new LED lights) since the Regan administration, and have been able to create faster assembly lines.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top