# Why are gunmakers allowed to copy designs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 14, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-gunmakers-allowed-to-copy-designs/481185 "2009-01-14T02:17:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2009, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-gunmakers-allowed-to-copy-designs/481185/41 "2009-01-15T11:23:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Never seen a replica? You can build a copy of just about any 20-year-old car you like, as long as you don’t call it the same thing as the original. There are hundreds of companies building replicas of iconic sports cars the Lotus 7\*, AC Cobra, Ford GT40, Lamborghini Countach, Ferrari F40… No, I haven’t seen a replica car, with the exception of things like the Batmobile from the 1960s TV series or the General Lee from _The Dukes of Hazzard_. It doesnt surprise me that they exist though- there are certainly plenty of replica WWI and WWII aircraft out there, so I can’t see why cars would be any different. But I think there’s a difference between a small-scale hobby industry (like converting a handful of Ford LTDs to Batmobiles or Dodge Chargers to General Lees) and completely re-starting production of a “Classic” car. Having said that, if someone was making a modernised but otherwise faithful replica of the Kingswood, I think they’d be very popular indeed. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2009, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-gunmakers-allowed-to-copy-designs/481185/42 "2009-01-15T14:35:57Z")
Not talking about reproductions of movie cars, although there are those too- I’m talking about replicas of actual cars. See [here](http://www.kitcarlist.com/). Don’t seem to be any Kingswood replica builders there. 😉 Actually, it looks like the Kingswood is a common donor car for Monaro replicas. > [@](#): > > But I think there’s a difference between a small-scale hobby industry (like converting a handful of Ford LTDs to Batmobiles or Dodge Chargers to General Lees) and completely re-starting production of a “Classic” car. Mass manufacturing of replicas is extremely rare, but it does happen; the original Mazda MX-5/Miata is an unashamed knockoff of the original (1960s) Lotus Elan. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-gunmakers-allowed-to-copy-designs/481185/43 "2009-01-16T02:57:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If, for example, having a VW logo on your car granted it magical aerodynamic properties, the VW logo would still be a trade mark. The VW logo is still a trademark. And can you point me to a patent office database record that shows the bmw grill is registered as a trademark? I would be interested. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-gunmakers-allowed-to-copy-designs/481185/44 "2009-01-16T03:05:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > \*cosmetic in the sense that it’s a visual cue, not in the sense that it doesn’t actually do anything. If, for example, having a VW logo on your car granted it magical aerodynamic properties, the VW logo would still be a trade mark. If only the VW logo carried such magical properties, and competitors needed to use it in order to produce competing flying cars, then, no, it could not remain exclusive as a trademark. Functional design features cannot be protected as tradmarks or trade dress. They have to be non-functional. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-gunmakers-allowed-to-copy-designs/481185/45 "2009-01-16T04:05:10Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > If only the VW logo carried such magical properties, and competitors needed to use it in order to produce competing flying cars, then, no, it could not remain exclusive as a trademark. Functional design features cannot be protected as tradmarks or trade dress. They have to be non-functional. Sure, but the VW logo is clearly not intended to be a functional design feature. I suppose that makes my other example a bit unlikely, though. > [@](#): > > The VW logo is still a trademark. > > And can you point me to a patent office database record that shows the bmw grill is registered as a trademark? I would be interested. I know- I meant it wouldn’t lose its trademark status because it made things fly, not that it isn’t a trademark now. And no… BMW’s own literature usually mentions it in the fine print, along with the roundel (logo), but I can’t find any references to it actually being registered. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-gunmakers-allowed-to-copy-designs/481185/46 "2009-01-16T04:15:55Z")
I was under the impression that Hummer and Jeep had trademarked or copyrighted the design of their radiator grilles as well, FWIW… ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-gunmakers-allowed-to-copy-designs/481185/47 "2009-01-16T04:29:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > And no… BMW’s own literature usually mentions it in the fine print, along with the roundel (logo), but I can’t find any references to it actually being registered. Well, I wasn’ going to claim it doesn’t have one, I just wanted to know for sure, because sometimes these things get misreported. But I checked and it does have a few trademarked grills, for example, US registered trademark Serial Number 79037537. So, yeah, you were right on that point. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-gunmakers-allowed-to-copy-designs/481185/48 "2009-01-16T13:56:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure, but the VW logo is clearly not intended to be a functional design feature. I suppose that makes my other example a bit unlikely, though. Regardless of intent, if the VW logo could make cars fly, Volkswagen could not prevent other car makers from using it. Volkswagen would lose its exclusive rights. > [@](#): > > .. BMW’s own literature usually mentions it in the fine print, along with the roundel (logo), but I can’t find any references to it actually being registered. Not all trademarks are registered. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-gunmakers-allowed-to-copy-designs/481185/49 "2009-01-16T14:42:26Z")
> [@Trocisp](#): > > The CZ-75 finished development in 1975, it’s also considered a very modern and advanced gun design, and is very reliable. The only gun that consistently rivals the Glock in user-driven ratings and occasionally surpasses it (_for duty pistols_). I’m no gun historian. But isn’t the CZ75 (which I own) based in turn on the Browning HP? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-gunmakers-allowed-to-copy-designs/481185/50 "2009-01-16T15:32:28Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > I’m no gun historian. But isn’t the CZ75 (which I own) based in turn on the Browning HP? It uses a Browning-style linkless lockup, and was one of the first true pistols after the Hi-Power to use a dual stack magazine, but there are numerous functional differences, including:[ul][li]The standard Hi-Power is a single action pistol; the CZ-75 is double action[/li][li]The Hi-Power has the slide ride outside the frame like the 1911; the CZ-75 has the slide running on internal rails like the Sig Sauer P210[/li][li]The CZ-75 has a 15 or 16 round magazine capacity (9mmP); the Hi-Power has a 13 round magazine capcity (9mmP).[/li][li]The two pistols have slightly different grip angles[/li][li]The CZ-75 has an external extractor arm; the original Hi-Power (pre-Mark III) did not[/li][li]The Hi-Power has a magazine disconnect safety; the CZ-75 does not[/li][li]The manual safety is located in a different place on the two pistols[/li][/ul] More detail from Modern Firearms: [Browning Hi-Power](http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg17-e.htm) [Ceska Zbrojovka CZ-75](http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg51-e.htm) While the two pistols are similar (and no doubt the Koucky brothers borrowed several concepts from the Hi-Power or derivatives therefrom) the CZ-75 is as much of an original (and IMHO, slightly better) design than the Hi-Power. Stranger [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-gunmakers-allowed-to-copy-designs/481185.md?page=2)