# U2 Clone - Of Course it's Illegal



## Phredd (Jan 30, 2007)

I read through some of the discussions, whether it's illegal, whether people should support a company that damages an American company, etc.

Come on, people. The clone is a clone, a duplicate of the Surefire U2, all the way down to "Surefire" printed on the side. This is illegal.

Let's be proud here at CPF. Please remove all links to the sale of this illegal clone from all threads.

Phredd


----------



## Illum (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: U2 Clone - Illegal*

sigh...
didnt we just go through this?

Guess not, its illegal, immoral, whatever you want to call it...
The forum cannot control what individuals think, I'm too also outraged by the shameless copy of the U2.


----------



## Phredd (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: U2 Clone - Illegal*



Illum_the_nation said:


> sigh...
> 
> didnt we just go through this?



Was there a verdict from the moderators? I still see links to the dealer's web site.

Phredd


----------



## Illum (Jan 30, 2007)

people want cheap lights, its just the way we are....

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1703522&postcount=131
empath closed a couple, but I believe theres other factors involved

according to what-was-once-fifthunit's shots
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1701752&postcount=85

I say they are a bit off...


----------



## greenLED (Jan 30, 2007)

Stick to your ethics. Vote with your wallet.

Personally, I'm :green: at the whole thing.


----------



## heliyardsale (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: U2 Clone - Illegal*



Phredd said:


> Was there a verdict from the moderators? I still see links to the dealer's web site.
> 
> Phredd


 
Quick call the company and change it's name to "Panda" you know, like the Chinese verison of the Honda 50... What's the old saying??? 
"Imitation is the great form of flattery". That is until you infringe on patents and copyright laws….


----------



## Phredd (Jan 30, 2007)

Illum_the_nation said:


> people want cheap lights, its just the way we are....
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1703522&postcount=131
> empath closed a couple, but I believe theres other factors involved
> ...



If people continue to post links to the dealer, maybe they should be suspended.


----------



## Phredd (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: U2 Clone - Illegal*



heliyardsale said:


> "Imitation is the great form of flattery". That is until you infringe on patents and copyright laws….



Yes, otherwise many good companies would be flattered out of business.


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

Phredd said:


> If people continue to post links to the dealer, maybe they should be suspended.



You've stated your opinion ad nauseum. Stop filibustering.


----------



## Brum (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: U2 Clone - Illegal*



Phredd said:


> Was there a verdict from the moderators? I still see links to the dealer's web site.
> 
> Phredd


FYI: it's not a clone. The pictures on the DX site are of the real U2, not the product youre buying.


----------



## Phredd (Jan 30, 2007)

curtis22 said:


> You've stated your opinion ad nauseum. Stop filibustering.



I've reviewed all my comments and I don't believe I've repeated myself at all, which makes your nasty characterizations, "ad nauseum" and "filibustering", all the more rude. If you don't want to read my comments, don't read the thread.


----------



## EngrPaul (Jan 30, 2007)

Since it's a cheap imitation, not being real competition for the U2, it probably just adds more interest in the U2.

Sorta like a matchbox car of a Corvette adding to a youngster's interest in having a real Corvette.

Surefire would do well to just leave it alone and consider it free advertisement.


----------



## greenstuffs (Jan 30, 2007)

there are no morals in this story, someone invents a flashlight that costs 3 bills and some chinese puts out to the market for 10% of the price? i don't see anything wrong people who buys surefire will keep buying surefires and the flashlight will be more accessible for people who aren't so keen on spending this kind of money on a flashlight. 
Same like SF Titan people are bitching about it.


----------



## Norm (Jan 30, 2007)

Phredd said:


> I read through some of the discussions, whether it's illegal, whether people should support a company that damages an American company, etc.
> 
> Come on, people. The clone is a clone, a duplicate of the Surefire U2, all the way down to "Surefire" printed on the side. This is illegal.
> 
> ...


The more threads you start about it the more promotion you are giving to the product. There's no such thing as bad publicity.
Norm


----------



## aurich_ (Jan 30, 2007)

how about some sense of reality here. what do you really expect to get for that little money? 

another site www.szwholesale.com, sister of www.qualitychinagoods.com for example does sell some watches with famous automotive brands on them and gives this warning:

We're not responsible for customs issue, which is rare tho. Do NOT checkout if you're not sure whether it will get thru or not. 

this should tell you enough about their products and their business behavior in general.

h

p.s.: my german customs would have a field day finding this stuff....


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

greenstuffs said:


> someone invents a flashlight that costs 3 bills



Are you sure they invented a flashlight? Do you know the patent number?


----------



## ynggrsshppr (Jan 30, 2007)

EngrPaul said:


> Since it's a cheap imitation, not being real competition for the U2, it probably just adds more interest in the U2.
> 
> Sorta like a matchbox car of a Corvette adding to a youngster's interest in having a real Corvette.
> 
> Surefire would do well to just leave it alone and consider it free advertisement.



I agree with you on this. When people buy a U2 they're not just buying a flashlight, they're buying a Surefire. They're different products so Surefire has nothing to worry about.

Don't I sound like a cheesy advertisement? Hehe.


----------



## aurich_ (Jan 30, 2007)

greenstuffs said:


> there are no morals in this story, someone invents a flashlight that costs 3 bills and some chinese puts out to the market for 10% of the price? i don't see anything wrong people who buys surefire will keep buying surefires and the flashlight will be more accessible for people who aren't so keen on spending this kind of money on a flashlight.
> Same like SF Titan people are bitching about it.


 
completely disagree. they may sell them in china as a lookalike but over here in germany they might sell them as a U2 on ebay. how will you know the difference then?

h

and they definetly should have a patent on the design at least, considering surefire's pricing


----------



## SemiMan (Jan 30, 2007)

.... and they ask what is wrong with society..... simple, lack of respect. In this case respect for the work of others and the ownership of the results of that work.

Just because you can not afford to buy a Surefire, does not give you a "right" to be able to buy a cheap clone. It is the same for STEALING music off the web. Owning music that someone else created is a privaledge, not a right. You may not like that it costs $15 for a CD or $0.99 to download a song, but that is the cost of the privaledge of having access to that piece of music.

I would love to own a Ferrari, but I can not afford it, so I do not. The fact that you can buy a clone flashlight or steal a song easily does not make it right, no more than me stealing a Ferrari.

The next time you think about buying a clone flashlight or stealing a song, why not think back to the last time something was stolen from you (it happens to all of us), how that made you feel, and what you would have liked to do to the person who stole it if they could be caught. If you still go ahead with your "theft", then please go back to my first sentence and know that you are part of the problem.

Semiman


----------



## aurich_ (Jan 30, 2007)

SemiMan said:


> .... and they ask what is wrong with society..... simple, lack of respect. In this case respect for the work of others and the ownership of the results of that work.
> 
> Just because you can not afford to buy a Surefire, does not give you a "right" to be able to buy a cheap clone. It is the same for STEALING music off the web. Owning music that someone else created is a privaledge, not a right. You may not like that it costs $15 for a CD or $0.99 to download a song, but that is the cost of the privaledge of having access to that piece of music.
> 
> ...


 
totally agree!!

h


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

aurich_ said:


> and they definetly should have a patent on the design at least, considering surefire's pricing



Can anyone spot a patent number on a Surefire U2 body? They are required to post the patent number if it exists.

Beyond that, reverse engineering is legal.

Wikipedia: 

"In the United States and many other countries, even if an artifact or process is protected by trade secrets, reverse-engineering the artifact or process is often lawful as long as it is obtained legitimately. "


----------



## LightScene (Jan 30, 2007)

Phredd said:


> I read through some of the discussions, whether it's illegal, whether people should support a company that damages an American company, etc.



Why would an individual put the welfare of an American company above their own welfare? 

We live in a global economy. We all want the most we can get for our money.

Phredd also said "Let's be proud here at CPF". More of the same cloudy thinking. The individual's welfare is expected to be subservient to the group welfare, and the group has a moral image that needs to be maintained. Yechh!


----------



## EngrPaul (Jan 30, 2007)

I can't believe their product has the SUREFIRE logo and website on it. Now that's blatant trademark infringement, regardless of whether or not the design is patented.


----------



## LightScene (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: U2 Clone - Illegal*



Brum said:


> FYI: it's not a clone. The pictures on the DX site are of the real U2, not the product youre buying.


If that's true, then this thread was started in ignorance.


----------



## 270winchester (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: U2 Clone - Illegal*

see the thread in reviews. do a search before you call people ignorant.



LightScene said:


> If that's true, then this thread was started in ignorance.


----------



## Phredd (Jan 30, 2007)

curtis22 said:


> Are you sure they invented a flashlight? Do you know the patent number?



They do have a patent pending on the variable output control, which apparently won't apply to the clone. There are most likely other filings to protect their design and trademarks.


----------



## Phredd (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: U2 Clone - Illegal*



Brum said:


> FYI: it's not a clone. The pictures on the DX site are of the real U2, not the product youre buying.
> 
> 
> LightScene said:
> ...



Thanks, EngrPaul, for posting those pics which show so clearly that they did use "U2" and "Surefire" twice, not to mention the overall look. Apparently they did such a good job, they fooled at least two CPF'ers.


----------



## deuscoup (Jan 30, 2007)

It looks like the patent is pending (at least that's what the torch says). I wonder what part is receiving the patent.


----------



## Illum (Jan 30, 2007)

EngrPaul, now that i see the pics....

oh dear, I've just come to realize the extend of this...copy


----------



## LightScene (Jan 30, 2007)

EngrPaul, Thanks for posting the pics. It indeed looks like they are selling a counterfeit product and that should be prevented. Crank up the steamrollers....


----------



## EngrPaul (Jan 30, 2007)

Please thank "tenfour" for the pictures 

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/150968


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

I searched the US patent office data base and can find a trademark for the phrase "THE POWER OF LIGHT THE POWER OF SUREFIRE". The other trademarks for Surefire are for fireplace lighters and herbicides. Maybe I missed it. Look for yourself at uspto.gov

If you hurry maybe you can register it yourself.


----------



## Brum (Jan 30, 2007)

EngrPaul said:


> I can't believe their product has the SUREFIRE logo and website on it. Now that's blatant trademark infringement, regardless of whether or not the design is patented.


Seeing those pictures, I'll have to take back my earlier statement. I'm certainly not a Surefire fan, but I completely agree with everyone that this isnt right.


----------



## robm (Jan 30, 2007)

My 2p (from UK we have p )
It is a copy and including the Surefire name and logo on the light is a bit rich, to say the least!

However, it is, in my opinion not sold as a real Surefire U2, therefore is not counterfeit (which I understand meaning 'intended to mislead').

I know _U2_ and _U2 style_ are very similar, but I am assuming most buyers that buy this (from new) do *not* think they are getting a *real* Surefire, but that they are getting something that looks and works a _bit_ like a Surefire U2.

That said though, anyone reselling this (on an online auction site for instance) may be less honest, and _caveat emptor_ as they used to say.

I have one of these on order, and must admit I am uncomfortable that it quite so close to the U2 in design (i.e. it says Surefire on it!)


----------



## Pax et Lux (Jan 30, 2007)

I agree with the tone of this thread.

The fact is that if this particular light - and other 'clones' or 'counterfeits' or whatever you want to call them - were made outside of China, there would be legal action. But China has set itself as outside of the law regarding moral rights (and human rights, too, but you get sneered at for saying it these days).

It bothers me that so much is posted on CPF raving about dubious China import lights in general - particularly when so many of them are clear rip-offs of other peoples' work. Those posting about these seem to be willingly suspending all disbelief; it's clear that these are low qualilty lights. It's almost like there's a political point being made somewhere - _freedom of choice_ has replaced patriotism.

Personally, I don't see why people have a need for a house full of junk lights. One or two as loaners or spares. . . but we've all got low quality lights already. Maybe I'm being elitist, but I come to CPF to read about the best of what's available. I do not have the need to own hundreds of lights, but I want to use the best of what's out there. I know that cost is a factor; I too cannot afford to buy what I'm reading about, but I still don't need to send off for more low quality lights.

I don't believe in censorship, but I don't like the blatant commercialization of the general CPF forums. I would rather the moderators move anything that seems to be promoting an importer/retailer - you know the ones I'm talking about here - into a different forum. Perhaps to Dealer/Manufacturer.

Maybe I'm guilty of double standards, as I know there are posts here hyping companies like Surefire, but these seem to be based around technical innovation, rather than just price. They seem to have something to say beyond _buy cheap_.

I do not want to slam the moderators, but I feel that someone should make a decision about what CPF policy is to counterfeit goods, even if they come from a part of the world that has opted to step aside from international law.


----------



## IsaacHayes (Jan 30, 2007)

It's not a clone, because a clone would be just like the U2. This one is simply an imitater/wanna-be! :nana:


----------



## EngrPaul (Jan 30, 2007)

I feel repelled from purchasing future merchandise from those marketing this product. 

Since I've seen the product markings, I'm certain it's unethical. I don't care if it's illegal.


----------



## metalhed (Jan 30, 2007)

Surefire's logo _is_ trademarked in the US. The inclusion of it, plus the use of the 'U2' designation on a flashlight of similar design, is a violation of current US law. Period.

The only thing that would change this is the existence of a licensing agreement between Surefire LLC and the makers of this light.

This is no different than rip-off 'Gucci' bags, 'Rolex" watches, and the like. Anyone importing these for sale could potentially be looking at confiscation or worse.

I would hope that dealxtreme.com would pull this light from their site and stop selling it. If they don't, I'm sure there will be consequences.


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

metalhed said:


> Surefire's logo _is_ trademarked in the US.



Are you sure? Can you find it at uspto.gov ?


----------



## Pax et Lux (Jan 30, 2007)

robm said:


> However, it is, in my opinion not sold as a real Surefire U2, therefore is not counterfeit (which I understand meaning 'intended to mislead').


 
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.


----------



## aurich_ (Jan 30, 2007)

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.
> 
> ...


 
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.....


----------



## Phredd (Jan 30, 2007)

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 (Jan 30, 2007)

*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 (Jan 30, 2007)

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  .


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

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 (Jan 30, 2007)

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 (Jan 30, 2007)

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.


----------



## LEDcandle (Jan 30, 2007)

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 (Jan 30, 2007)

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 (Jan 30, 2007)

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 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 (Jan 30, 2007)

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 (Jan 30, 2007)

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 (Jan 30, 2007)

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:


----------



## tenfour (Jan 30, 2007)

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.

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...


----------



## tenfour (Jan 30, 2007)

Knifemaster: that is ridiculous  this light is nowhere near what a U2 is. Not even close!


----------



## metalhed (Jan 30, 2007)

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 (Jan 30, 2007)

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 (Jan 30, 2007)

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  



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 (Jan 30, 2007)

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 (Jan 30, 2007)

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.


----------



## mchlwise (Jan 30, 2007)

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.





Yeah... except that this "clone" has none of the features, quality, or anything else of the Surefire except for a very simmilar design, and a copycat paintjob. 

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Unforgiven (Jan 30, 2007)

metalhed said:


> 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.



metalhed,
Any way you look at it it is about legal and moral issues.... Not flashlights. As said many times before moderation is not a topic of discussion on CPF. No further warnings on the subject will be given in this thread.
_
Unforgiven_


----------



## McGizmo (Jan 30, 2007)

Do morals and ethics require laws and enforcement? Yes they do. Why is that? Well maybe because there are folks who are blind to morals and ethics. We can support those people by buying the great deals out of their car trunks and off their web sites. At some point we might even buy back something that was stolen from us in the first place! :thumbsup:

I don't need to know any of the technicalities or patents or rules pertaining to this forgery under discussion. I also know that it is not a form of flattery to SF. It's a piece of poop that is provided for profit and intended to be sold to the unknowing, unwitting and uncaring. Hopefully the customers for this light don't get let down when it counts.

I think this light breaks a rule that is above national or international law. It is a rule golden in substance. But then rules are meant to be broken,right?


----------



## EngrPaul (Jan 30, 2007)

The right word to describe this flashlight is not "Clone". It should be "Forgery"

Clone would imply this flashlight has the same DNA.


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

I hope that the posts in this thread have shown that topics are often not as simple as they seem on the surface and that vigilantism is never a good idea.


----------



## Knifemaster (Jan 30, 2007)

ABTOMAT said:


> 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. .


 I knew that someone wold bring up R&D in all of this. Your point would be correct in what they were designing was fighter jets or cancer fighting medications, but what they are “designing” is tubes with batteries inside and a bulb at the end that lights up. The truth of the matter is that they have a guy on an CAD workstation designing this stuff, and a couple of guys from the factory floor that make the prototypes part time not full time. They don't design their own LED's and they don't design or manufacture the metals their lights are made of etc. They create a product from available materials. They are even late to the Cree party. If they had a huge R&D department or a huge R&D budget they would be the first ones out with all the newest innovations. What they have is a “Tactical” label to them and some advertising which allows them to charge high prices. Surefire is not Jesus of the flashlight world


----------



## LEDcandle (Jan 30, 2007)

Brighteyez said:


> Are there more stringent laws in Singapore about people buying/possessing counterfeits?



For flashlights, nope. I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference between a Surefire and a clone, if they even knew what a Surefire was :laughing:

But on a serious note, the general support of Intellectual Property here is quite high. But it usually takes the stakeholders themselves to put some pressure before some action is taken.

In terms of media and luxury goods, recently there has been a lot of legal action. Louis Vuitton has been pushing hard against counterfeiters and have been succeeding. Fake cigarette cases, bags etc... from the seller in the market to even a recent case of an individual seller on yahoo auctions doing it as a sideline, they have all been prosecuted. (ranging fine and jail terms)

Possessing counterfeits is probably more of a gray area. Except for pirated movies/software, the rest are pretty much left alone. 

*curtis22,* by common copyright law, the act of 'passing off' is illegal. Putting a logo similar to Surefire which will mislead the general consumer to believe it is one is already illegal, much less copying the original logo!! 

And in trademarking, even if its not federally registered ( the R logo ), its still TM. As long as an entity uses a certain mark in its business which is widely recognised, any act of passing off using its goodwill is an infringement. Registering it just makes it easier to process. Just like agreements; a verbal agreement is legally binding, but extremely hard to prove, that's why written contracts are made. 

So blatantly using a Surefire logo IS in every way an infringement, whether its federally registered or not.

*knifemaster*, I'm sure Surefire marks up its lights a certain extent, but let's not go so far as to say that if it can be done for $30, then Surefire is inflating it unfairly. Innovating it, R&D, quality control, using premium parts etc... all add to the cost. Copying a mould is always cheaper.

It may not be a rocket science, but it still involves some manhours to design it. The quality of bulbs, where the knurling should go for best grip, shock isolation etc... put yourself in an innovators shoes! If you created a new product and it got pirated and sold for 30% of the price, you'd be peeved too.


----------



## heliyardsale (Jan 30, 2007)

Knifemaster said:


> 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:


 
TU-SHEA!! I know, the spelling sucks... I just wanted keep the war going... Personally I may have purchased the Clone, but not until they take the Surefire name off... I can't afford a U2 but I refuse to wear a fake Rolex, so to speak... My advice... Get rid of the logo... It's easy to see from the photo comparision that the real Surefire is a much better light (Drool) I only wish I could afford one...:touche:


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

LEDcandle said:


> So blatantly using a Surefire logo IS in every way an infringement, whether its federally registered or not.



So the Chinese company can sue? Were they first? I'm not a lawyer, are you?

I just think these matters should be left to the courts and not to vigilantes that want to police web sites. Let ICE handle it.


----------



## McGizmo (Jan 30, 2007)

Knifemaster said:


> I knew that someone wold bring up R&D in all of this. Your point would be correct in what they were designing was fighter jets or cancer fighting medications, but what they are “designing” is tubes with batteries inside and a bulb at the end that lights up. The truth of the matter is that they have a guy on an CAD workstation designing this stuff, and a couple of guys from the factory floor that make the prototypes part time not full time. They don't design their own LED's and they don't design or manufacture the metals their lights are made of etc. They create a product from available materials. They are even late to the Cree party. If they had a huge R&D department or a huge R&D budget they would be the first ones out with all the newest innovations. What they have is a “Tactical” label to them and some advertising which allows them to charge high prices. Surefire is not Jesus of the flashlight world



This is a real crock here! It is spoken as fact which I know to be fiction! Do you know how many engineers work at SF? Are you aware of the electronics involved? Do you know the particular alloy of Al that SF specifies and has made specific for them from the mill? Obviously you don't and obviously you don't care or perhaps you do and the post is nothing more than bait? OK, I bite. 

*"... “designing” is tubes with batteries inside and a bulb at the end that lights up. * Even this forgery here is a bit more complicated than such a description. 

For what it is worth, the only thing that has me insensed about this light is the identification as something it is not. If this light were unmarked or had a label of SUreMemiGhtFire on it, I could care less and would ignore it as is my right. In a world of fake anatomy, photoshop and self proclaimed experts, imitations may fly on the superficial. Just don't look to close or count on them when it might matter. :shrug:


----------



## Size15's (Jan 30, 2007)

Knifemaster,
You write of "truth" as though you have toured SureFire and seen SureFire's operations for yourself. It shouldn't be so hard to remember the names of the three guys you met from Engineering then?

If you need your memory jogging there are always the 2007 catalogs.

Thank you for your contribution to the CPF community.

Al


----------



## LEDcandle (Jan 30, 2007)

curtis22,

Well, I won't pretend to be a know-it-all, but have been doing business dealing with IP and know enough. I'm not getting involved in saying who should sue who, but just voicing my personal opinion that this outright copying is too blatant. Copying the entire look is already pushing it; but putting a fake logo is just too much. 

Surefire charging high prices is not illegal; if you don't like it, don't buy their items. Companies producing imitations are technically breaking the law; so it is only natural to see some 'outrage' from people. 

Forums are a very powerful medium; who knows if this post gets Surefire's attention who might subsequently take legal action. I think it is ok to discuss stuff like this as long as we do it objectively.


----------



## ABTOMAT (Jan 30, 2007)

Knifemaster said:


> I knew that someone wold bring up R&D in all of this. Your point would be correct in what they were designing was fighter jets or cancer fighting medications, but what they are “designing” is tubes with batteries inside and a bulb at the end that lights up. The truth of the matter is that they have a guy on an CAD workstation designing this stuff, and a couple of guys from the factory floor that make the prototypes part time not full time. They don't design their own LED's and they don't design or manufacture the metals their lights are made of etc. They create a product from available materials. They are even late to the Cree party. If they had a huge R&D department or a huge R&D budget they would be the first ones out with all the newest innovations. What they have is a “Tactical” label to them and some advertising which allows them to charge high prices. Surefire is not Jesus of the flashlight world



I'm not a huge SureFire fan, and I only own one of their products right now. I'm just saying getting the ball rolling on these things costs more than you think, as does operating a small company where they do. Yeah, it's not a fighter jet--no Surefire costs $3 million a pop. They do a great deal of R&D--it takes a while to come up with a complicated product that can reliably be made in large numbers. And they also market it widely, which costs money.

The reason that they don't use the most absolute bleeding-edge technology is very simple. They're a big enough company that they can't put something out in numbers until it's been proven, and is fully planned out as far as parts sourcing, assembly, etc. I'm not saying this is a good example, NASA was using 486-powered computers until recently because nothing newer had been as fully developed. Mag-Lite was about 10 years late to the LED party simply because they needed the technology to mature to a point where they could make a buck on it.

I actually think Surefire does too much playing around with new designs. They make a ton of stuff just for fun that never gets sold, and probably doesn't contribute a lot to the regular product lines. I'm sure this drives up the price on production lights up. I'm not a big believer in the U2, either.

If it's so easy and cheap to make a flashlight, you design and sell one. Make a tube and write "tactical" on it and come back here in a year laughing about how many millions you made.


----------



## Size15's (Jan 30, 2007)

ABTOMAT said:


> The reason that they don't use the most absolute bleeding-edge technology is very simple.


Which absolute bleeding-edge technology aren't they using?


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

LEDcandle said:


> curtis22,
> 
> Well, I won't pretend to be a know-it-all, but have been doing business dealing with IP and know enough. I'm not getting involved in saying who should sue who, but just voicing my personal opinion that this outright copying is too blatant. Copying the entire look is already pushing it; but putting a fake logo is just too much.
> 
> ...



If I recall correctly, the original poster wanted posters posting URLs to certain Chinese web site products banned without any evidence as to which company (if any) violated any laws. Even with evidence, I doubt whether anyone here is qualified to be the judge and jury.

I have no idea whether any Chinese company is violating any alleged (possibly) forthcoming patents. I also don't know who was the first to use certain trademarks. The courts can decide that.


----------



## Size15's (Jan 30, 2007)

curtis22 said:


> ...Even with evidence, I doubt whether anyone here is qualified to be the judge and jury...


 :laughing: This is the internet!


----------



## Chronos (Jan 30, 2007)

McGizmo said:


> ... It's a piece of poop that is provided for profit and intended to be sold to the unknowing, unwitting and uncaring. Hopefully the customers for this light don't get let down when it counts.
> 
> I think this light breaks a rule that is above national or international law. It is a rule golden in substance. But then rules are meant to be broken,right?



Sigh. This is so true. A blatant ripoff. I'd expect to see this being peddled on a street corner in Georgetown alongside the Coach ripoffs and the other cheap handbag copies.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 30, 2007)

According to the very detailed review posted by TenFour,
The faux Surefire doesn't actually copy much (if any) of the features for
which Surefire is so well-known. They just copy the look and the name.

Seems like a rip-off of the customer as well as Surefire.

I am surprised that dealextreme is endangering their reputation here
by selling something like this.

They are also likely endangering their ability to get their shipments through
Customs in a timely manner, because Customs will want to search every
shipment from dealextreme for counterfeit Surefires, and they may nick
a few Ultrafires and anything else that looks like them in the process.


----------



## big beam (Jan 30, 2007)

All of you seem to forget CHINA IS A COMMUNIST COUNTRY and there companies do whatever they want to generate funds.If you think anything is going to be done at their end you're sadly mistaken.The only way to stop this type of thing is to not make a market for it.Other than that all we can do is whine
DON


----------



## metalhed (Jan 30, 2007)

curtis22 said:


> If I recall correctly, the original poster wanted posters posting URLs to certain Chinese web site products banned without any evidence as to which company (if any) violated any laws.



No...that's not what the OP said:



> *Phredd said:*
> 
> Let's be proud here at CPF. Please remove all links to the sale of this illegal clone from all threads.



He was clearly asking _members_ to _voluntarily_ remove their posted links to the _offending site/product_.


----------



## Size15's (Jan 30, 2007)

big beam said:


> ...Other than that all we can do is whine...


I like to think that CPF'ers can do more than whine. I once read a thread on CPF that was on a positive & constructive subject... Of course Admin staff deleted the thread and banned all the posters as a lesson to the rest but that's not the point.


----------



## Illum (Jan 30, 2007)

wow arent we off topic....


----------



## Led_Blind (Jan 30, 2007)

Well, after checking its spec's i would much rather an origonal U2 to the lookalike. So to me, buying this light would be akin to buying a $10,000 Daewo and spending another $20,000 to make it look like a BMW, then spending another $20,000 to get some sort of performance out of it. 

And after spending 50k on this car i realise i could have purchased the real BMW for 40k.... 

Cheap aint always better!


----------



## Phredd (Jan 30, 2007)

curtis22 said:


> I hope that the posts in this thread have shown that topics are often not as simple as they seem on the surface and that vigilantism is never a good idea.



Do you really believe that you've put all of us in our place? That because we couldn't point you to trademarks on uspto.gov and that because you SIMPLY DON'T BELIEVE what metalhed and LEDcandle told you about trademarks, that IT'S OKAY to use the company name "Surefire" and their product name and logo "U2"?

Or are you just trying to show us that you really do know what the word "filibuster" means. OMG, you've been harping on these trademark and patent issues in _NINE_ posts so far. Give it rest, why doncha!


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

metalhed said:


> No...that's not what the OP said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was clearly asking _members_ to _voluntarily_ remove their posted links to the _offending site/product_.



I guess you missed this:

" If people continue to post links to the dealer, maybe they should be suspended."


----------



## Greta (Jan 30, 2007)

Knifemaster said:


> I knew that someone wold bring up R&D in all of this. Your point would be correct in what they were designing was fighter jets or cancer fighting medications, but what they are “designing” is tubes with batteries inside and a bulb at the end that lights up. The truth of the matter is that they have a guy on an CAD workstation designing this stuff, and a couple of guys from the factory floor that make the prototypes part time not full time. They don't design their own LED's and they don't design or manufacture the metals their lights are made of etc. They create a product from available materials. They are even late to the Cree party. If they had a huge R&D department or a huge R&D budget they would be the first ones out with all the newest innovations. What they have is a “Tactical” label to them and some advertising which allows them to charge high prices. Surefire is not Jesus of the flashlight world


 
*WOW!!*... We need to set you up with a tour of the Surefire facilities so you won't make an *** of yourself with posts like this again! ... *WOW!*... _(did I say that already?)_


----------



## Brighteyez (Jan 30, 2007)

Bear in mind that they just changed their name recently. If it gets to be an issue, they can just change their name again.

Not that much different than how some of those mom&pop computer stores used to work. If the shop was not doing well or they needed to tube it, they'd just open up in a new location under a new name.

And because they're dealing in relatively small quantities, they're probably flying under the radar since it's all coming in by mail in plain looking packages.



AndyTiedye said:


> I am surprised that dealextreme is endangering their reputation here
> by selling something like this.
> 
> They are also likely endangering their ability to get their shipments through
> ...


----------



## jeffb (Jan 30, 2007)

Knifemaster, obviously you have vast experience in manufacturing, sales and marketing (advertising), R&D, prototyping, CAD, LED's (Cree), part time workers, management,Tactical markets and also the Religous world ("Jesus").

I'm sure that General Motors and Ford (to name just two, struggling Manufacturers)are looking for people with your skills; with "billions" of dollars in debt, you could certainly make a difference.

Also, perhaps a resume, sent to Surefire would be appropriate. Starting your own business, if you haven't, might also work!

Good Luck,

jeffb





Knifemaster said:


> I knew that someone wold bring up R&D in all of this. Your point would be correct in what they were designing was fighter jets or cancer fighting medications, but what they are “designing” is tubes with batteries inside and a bulb at the end that lights up. The truth of the matter is that they have a guy on an CAD workstation designing this stuff, and a couple of guys from the factory floor that make the prototypes part time not full time. They don't design their own LED's and they don't design or manufacture the metals their lights are made of etc. They create a product from available materials. They are even late to the Cree party. If they had a huge R&D department or a huge R&D budget they would be the first ones out with all the newest innovations. What they have is a “Tactical” label to them and some advertising which allows them to charge high prices. Surefire is not Jesus of the flashlight world


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

Sasha said:


> *WOW!!*... We need to set you up with a tour of the Surefire facilities so you won't make an *** of yourself with posts like this again! ... *WOW!*... _(did I say that already?)_



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

Does calling someone an "***" qulaify as being uncivil?


----------



## Size15's (Jan 30, 2007)

curtis22 said:


> "This thread must remain civil or it will be close and must be be taken to the Underground to be continued."
> 
> Does calling someone an "***" qulaify as being uncivil?


Good question well posted. Hold that thought, I'll check with Kel (owner of CPF) whether she thinks something should be done about Sasha's post.


----------



## Brighteyez (Jan 30, 2007)

I think you're going to find that communism has very little to do with the growth of the Chinese economy. As a matter of fact much of it may not even be the product of the Chinese government but rather the established business people of Taiwan (yeah, their arch-enemy) and the newly reunified Hong Kong. As you probably know, the primary area where all the electronics manufacturing is occurring is in the Shenzhen area in the province of Guandong (once known to Westerners as Canton,) just north of Hong Kong. Now what a lot of people don't know is that the establishment and funding for many of those factories is coming from Taiwan and Hong Kong (which China as pledged a hands-off policy on for 50 years.) Those same factories are also controlled by these companies from the almost foreign shores, yet they still remain somewhat closed to direct access from the West. And as you have probably heard, that Apple iPod is built in a Chinese factory, where the workers are sequestered (not allowed to leave.) And that factory is actually owned by a Taiwanese company (not Apple.) I guess that money and the prospect of making more cures any political differences that the Taiwanese business people have with China ... Chiang Kai Shek would probably be rolling in his grave 

Not make a market for "them"? The next time you go shopping, count up how many items in your cart are Made In China. One place I never expected it was in the supermarket, but look closely and see how many food items are even processed in China (and I don't mean foods in the Asian foods section.) A while back I picked up some Albertson's house brand apple juice ... guess where it was processed? 

Buying tools from Sears or Home Depot? How many have Made in China/India/Pakistan on them?

There's not a lot that hasn't already been outsourced to China.



big beam said:


> All of you seem to forget CHINA IS A COMMUNIST COUNTRY and there companies do whatever they want to generate funds.If you think anything is going to be done at their end you're sadly mistaken.The only way to stop this type of thing is to not make a market for it.Other than that all we can do is whine
> DON


----------



## Art Vandelay (Jan 30, 2007)

Forget about the legal stuff for a minute. Is it honest to put another companies name on your company’s product? Is it right to sell deceptively labeled products? Is it honorable to sell deceptively labeled products for somebody else? Honest, right, & honorable, those aren’t legal terms, but I prefer to do business with people who share my understanding of them.

I hope and expect that the owner of Dealextreme will at least have his supplier stop dishonestly putting the Surefire label on his flashlights.


----------



## Brighteyez (Jan 30, 2007)

Excuse me, I don't mean to butt in, but isn't "***" the correct terminology for a donkey when used in that context? If I recall it's even used in the Bible like that isn't it?



Size15's said:


> Good question well posted. Hold on whilst I check with Kel (owner of CPF) whether she thinks something should be done about Sasha's post.


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

Brighteyez said:


> Excuse me, I don't mean to butt in, but isn't "***" the correct terminology for a donkey when used in that context? If I recall it's even used in the Bible like that isn't it?



I guess I missed the animal context.

Where was it again?


----------



## Size15's (Jan 30, 2007)

Brighteyez said:


> Excuse me, I don't mean to butt in, but isn't "***" the correct terminology for a donkey when used in that context? If I recall it's even used in the Bible like that isn't it?


I've read SureFire's catalog cover to cover and don't recall that part. It wasn't like I was proof-reading it so maybe I missed it...


----------



## Brighteyez (Jan 30, 2007)

Trademark infringement seems to be a whole 'nother game. There are Hong Kong and China based sellers that have been openly selling goods with counterfeited logos on eBay for quite some time now. Seem to remember that it was also quite popular in Korea, but it was pretty much internal to South Korea. And if asked about it, I understand the response is often that the product is an "imitation" rather than a "counterfeit".

And don't forget the even larger quantites of counterfeit products that are being imported into the country and being sold out of the trunks of cars and at flea markets victimizing those who can least afford it. (and maybe a few greedy ones who deserve to be taken  )



Art Vandelay said:


> Forget about the legal stuff for a minute. Is it honest to put another companies name on your company’s product? Is it right to sell deceptively labeled products? Is it honorable to sell deceptively labeled products for somebody else? Honest, right, & honorable, those aren’t legal terms, but I prefer to do business with people who share my understanding of them.
> 
> I hope and expect that the owner of Dealextreme will at least have his supplier stop dishonestly putting the Surefire label on his flashlights.


----------



## Brighteyez (Jan 30, 2007)

Al, you got me. I confess. I'm afraid it took me a moment to get that one 



Size15's said:


> I've read SureFire's catalog cover to cover and don't recall that part. It wasn't like I was proof-reading it so maybe I missed it...


----------



## jeffb (Jan 30, 2007)

"I've read SureFire's catalog cover to cover and don't recall that part. It wasn't like I was proof-reading it so maybe I missed it... Today 09:07 PM"

Thanks Al, I haven't laughed that hard in some time!

Still Laughing,
jeffb:laughing:


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jan 30, 2007)

ynggrsshppr said:


> I agree with you on this. When people buy a U2 they're not just buying a flashlight, they're buying a Surefire. They're different products so Surefire has nothing to worry about.
> 
> Don't I sound like a cheesy advertisement? Hehe.



But can't you see how "bait and switch" fits this clone?

If it didn't cause all this fighting (which it wouldn't if not a clone right down to the markings!)

If it only just LOOKed like a U2 in shape, nobody would be so up in arms.


----------



## Greta (Jan 30, 2007)

curtis22 said:


> "This thread must remain civil or it will be close and must be be taken to the Underground to be continued."
> 
> Does calling someone an "***" qulaify as being uncivil?


 


Size15s said:


> Good question well posted. Hold that thought, I'll check with Kel (owner of CPF) whether she thinks something should be done about Sasha's post.


 
Kel says:

_"Not when it is reference to a post that is clearly baiting and when the poster is indeed being an ***... yes, as in a *******."_

Kel also says:

_"CPF members who only get called an *** instead of getting banned for baiting should consider themselves lucky and leave it at that. Other CPF members should take note."_


----------



## deuscoup (Jan 30, 2007)

From a corporate perspective...

If SF were to receive a message describing this product as a business risk they would be legally responsible to consider the message at that corporate level and identify if it is a risk to investors.

Seems more constructive.

Just a thought


----------



## Brighteyez (Jan 30, 2007)

I think Surefire is a privately held Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) isn't it?



deuscoup said:


> From a corporate perspective...
> 
> If SF were to receive a message describing this product as a business risk they would be legally responsible to consider the message at that corporate level and identify if it is a risk to investors.
> 
> ...


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

Sasha said:


> Kel says:
> 
> _"Not when it is reference to a post that is clearly baiting and when the poster is indeed being an ***... yes, as in a *******."_
> 
> ...



You weren't baited. This was your first post in the thread. 

No one invoked you or referred to you.


----------



## FlashKat (Jan 30, 2007)

Come on...Let's get real!!! We all know what happened, and yes it was a little slip of the tongue, but we should be able to speak freely within reason. Words like @ss, B**ch can be defined in the dictionary such as your Donkey and Female Dog which are derogatory, but there are far worse that are used everyday.
On a final note...Surefire most likely knows about the U2 clone and is laughing at these posts.


Sasha said:


> Kel says:
> 
> _"Not when it is reference to a post that is clearly baiting and when the poster is indeed being an ***... yes, as in a *******."_
> 
> ...


----------



## deuscoup (Jan 30, 2007)

> I think Surefire is a privately held Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) isn't it?



That's what I get for making assumption. Thanks for pointing that out. If you are correct they can ignore any messages to speak of (but I'm not sure they would). Still seems more constructive.

Edit: You are correct LLC 2001-2006 as per website


----------



## Phredd (Jan 30, 2007)

deuscoup said:


> If SF were to receive a message describing this product



I sent an e-mail to Surefire's general mailbox at the same time I started this thread.


----------



## EngrPaul (Jan 30, 2007)

I posted a poll here:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/151038


----------



## deuscoup (Jan 30, 2007)

> I sent an e-mail to Surefire's general mailbox at the same time I started this thread.



I was off base with my earlier post. If SF were a publicly held company the message would need to be directed to investor relations. Since SF does not have one I think I would try to get around the "customer feedback" area I saw on their website (I don't know if that's the one you used.) I would want to reach a VP or higher.

Forgive me for my intrusion on this thread.


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

Which flashlight is forged?


----------



## Greta (Jan 30, 2007)

curtis22 said:


> You weren't baited. This was your first post in the thread.
> 
> No one invoked you or referred to you.


 
No one has to. I own this place. And I enforce the rules.


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 30, 2007)

Sasha said:


> No one has to. I own this place. And I enforce the rules.



LOL.Not very evenly.


----------



## deuscoup (Jan 30, 2007)

> No one has to. I own this place. And I enforce the rules.



Is now a bad time to ask for a new server? 

Thanks for hosting.


----------



## Greta (Jan 30, 2007)

curtis22 said:


> LOL.Not very evenly.


 
Curtis... *YOU* might want to read the rules... after all, you agreed to abide by them when you registered. Might be a good idea to pay particular attention the the disclaimer at the bottom.

CPF Rules


----------



## aileron (Jan 30, 2007)

curtis22 said:


> Which flashlight is forged?



Assuming non-link references are kosher.. the $19.95 'Surefire U2 Style K2 Flashlight Black' at dealextreme seems to be what all the controversy is over.

I'm of two minds on the subject- on one hand it's clearly a direct copy of the U2 down to the knurling and logo, and thus would seem to be illegal counterfeit goods under some countries' laws.
On the other hand, does trademark or copyright apply to the Shenzhen SEZ? I understand the U.S and Germany enforce their own restrictions on imported goods, but surely many countries do not.


----------



## Phredd (Jan 30, 2007)

Sasha said:


> No one has to. I own this place. And I enforce the rules.
> 
> 
> curtis22 said:
> ...



Curtis,

Are you now going for the record to see how many people you can **** off in one thread? You certainly hold the record for how many times the same argument can be repeated.

Phredd


----------



## Phredd (Jan 30, 2007)

curtis22 said:


> Which flashlight is forged?



Okay, now there's absolutely no question that you are no more than a common troll trying to bait everyone here. Even you know that this flashlight with the "Surefire" and "U2" logos is a forgery. I sure wish someone would just knock you off the forum so the rest of us could have an intelligent discussion.


----------



## Greta (Jan 30, 2007)

Ok... I think this thread has played itself sufficiently out. I'll do the honors...


----------

