{"id":36411,"date":"2026-09-28T18:04:16","date_gmt":"2026-09-28T22:04:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/?p=36411"},"modified":"2026-09-28T18:04:17","modified_gmt":"2026-09-28T22:04:17","slug":"ruger-wins-trademark-dispute-with-fn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/?p=36411","title":{"rendered":"Ruger Wins Trademark Dispute With FN"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

FN Herstal SA and FN America LLC filed a trademark dispute case<\/a><\/strong> against Sturm, Ruger in US District Court in North Carolina about 2 1\/2 years ago. The dispute was over whether Ruger’s SFAR rifle, its name, and its advertising infringed upon FN’s trademark for the SCAR line of rifles.<\/p>\n

This past Friday, US District Court Judge David Bragdon<\/a><\/strong> said that Ruger did not violate FN’s trademark. He found for Ruger granting their motion for summary judgment and denied FN’s motion for partial summary motion. He additionally denied as moot FN’s attempt to exclude the expert testimony of Ashley Hlebinsky and W. Todd Schoettelkotte on behalf of Ruger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge Bragdon’s core holding was that there was no likelihood confusion on the part of consumers. He applied the Fourth Circuit\u2019s nine-factor test which included factors such as similarity of marks, intent, and actual confusion on the part of buyers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In the marketplace, the SCAR and SFAR marks are different in sight, sound, and meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


First, the SCAR and SFAR marks are different in sight. SCAR is an English word understood by almost all Americans to mean a mark left on the body after an injury or burn. SFAR is not an English word and means nothing outside of its acronym. This difference makes it easy to distinguish between the two. It is not likely that someone would see SFAR and think it was the same thing as SCAR.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In balancing the factors, the court emphasized that mark similarity, intent, and actual confusion are among the most important. Even assuming the SCAR mark is strong, the clear dissimilarity of the marks, absence of intent, and lack of actual confusion compelled the conclusion that there was no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In oral arguments, attorneys for FN acknowledged that losing on the trademark claim would likely dispose of their other claims which rested on a likelihood of confusion analysis. Thus, when Judge Bragdon found for Ruger on the trademark violation issue, he dismissed the remainder of FN’s partial claims for summary judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The full 22-page decision is below. It is interesting to note the judge included photos of both firearms in his decision along with closeups of the markings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n