Jump to content

GN'R sues gun store for trademark infringement


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

Sorry, but you're morally deranged. Your guns are killing people every day and you try to find some ridiculous argument as to why Joe the plumber needs one. Don't think there's any use on discussing this any further with someone like you

My guns haven't killed anyone, including animals. 

They have, however, claimed the lives of many dirt piles, clays, bricks, various fruits and soda bottles, and milk jugs. 

The only things they have hurt, are your feelings. :D 

Don't hate what you don't understand, or more importantly, don't try to take away something from others that you don't like, or understand. Just kidding, come and take them. ;) 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, allwaystired said:

“GNR, quite reasonably, does not want to be associated with defendant, a firearms and weapons retailer. Furthermore, defendant espouses political views related to the regulation and control of firearms and weapons on the website that may be polarizing to many U.S. consumers.”

Good on the band for taking a stand based on their views and principles. 

It sounds more like they are trying to avoid taking a stand if the reason they don't want to be associated with this is because it "may be polarizing to many U.S. consumers." In other words, they don't want to risk alienating any consumers by taking a stand one way or the other.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

It sounds more like they are trying to avoid taking a stand if the reason they don't want to be associated with this is because it "may be polarizing to many U.S. consumers." In other words, they don't want to risk alienating any consumers by taking a stand one way or the other.

But it explicitly says that they don't want to be associated with a business of this nature ("a firearms and weapons retailer), which on top of that expresses certain polarizing views regarding guns (I suppose against gun control).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

But it explicitly says that they don't want to be associated with a business of this nature ("a firearms and weapons retailer), which on top of that expresses certain polarizing views regarding guns (I suppose against gun control).

What it says indicates that the reason they don't want to be associated with a business of this nature is because of the polarizing nature of the gun issue. At any rate, no other reason was given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

What it says indicates that the reason they don't want to be associated with a business of this nature is because of the polarizing nature of the gun issue. At any rate, no other reason was given.

It doesn't read like this to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Swedish said:

I don’t doubt it for a second, they can own how many firearms they want as far as I’m concerned. However, it’s common knowledge that Axl, Slash and Duff lean democratic. Therefore it’s not hard to imagine them being for further gun regulation, especially Duff since he wrote an entire song about it. This lawsuits is just another proof of that in my opinion.

By the same logic, the fact that they sued a brewery for trademark infringement is proof that they are anti-beer.

They might or might not be in favor of gun regulation, but I don't see anything about this lawsuit that proves it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

By the same logic, the fact that they sued a brewery for trademark infringement is proof that they are anti-beer.

They might or might not be in favor of gun regulation, but I don't see anything about this lawsuit that proves it.

I know that they have to sue every one of infringes on the trademark in order to keep it, so that is definitely the main reason for this lawsuit and the lawsuit against the brewery. However, I was specifically talking about the “GNR, quite reasonably, does not want to be associated with defendant, a firearms and weapons retailer” part of the lawsuit. 
 

This is separated from the complaint about the political views of the business owner, since that isn’t mentioned until after the “furthermore”, indicating that it is the nature of the business that the band mainly doesn’t want to associate it self with. Is it really a stretch to think that a lawsuit against a firearms dealer, from a band with members that have outright said that they are for further regulations of guns, is further proof of their thoughts on the matter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's how media read it, too:

News|Gun Violence

Guns N’ Roses sues online gun shop for appropriating name

One of the most successful rock bands of all time said in a lawsuit it does not want to be ‘associated with a firearms and weapons retailer’.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/3/guns-n-roses-sues-online-gun-shop-for-appropriating-name

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Swedish said:

I know that they have to sue every one of infringes on the trademark in order to keep it, so that is definitely the main reason for this lawsuit and the lawsuit against the brewery. However, I was specifically talking about the “GNR, quite reasonably, does not want to be associated with defendant, a firearms and weapons retailer” part of the lawsuit. 
 

This is separated from the complaint about the political views of the business owner, since that isn’t mentioned until after the “furthermore”, indicating that it is the nature of the business that the band mainly doesn’t want to associate it self with. Is it really a stretch to think that a lawsuit against a firearms dealer, from a band with members that have outright said that they are for further regulations of guns, is further proof of their thoughts on the matter.

I think there are more things in the past that point to the band (or at least Axl) being pro-guns than there is anything pointing the other way. Even Duff used to pose with guns. But that's not really my point and maybe things have changed.

If your interpretation of the quote from the lawsuit is correct, then it's quite a contradictory statement to make. After all, taking a stand against guns is no less polarizing than the opposite views of the gun retailer.

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

That's how media read it, too:

News|Gun Violence

Guns N’ Roses sues online gun shop for appropriating name

One of the most successful rock bands of all time said in a lawsuit it does not want to be ‘associated with a firearms and weapons retailer’.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/3/guns-n-roses-sues-online-gun-shop-for-appropriating-name

And the reason they don't want to be associated with a firearms and weapons retailer could very well be the polarizing nature of the gun issue and not because they are taking a stand against guns or in favor of regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 11:36 AM, Swedish said:

This lawsuits is just another proof of that in my opinion.

Unless the assumption is that the GNR camp will not sue for trademark infringement against more liberal leaning institutions (like a Portland fair trade coffee company, as a hypothetic) that uses the phrase "Guns and Roses", I don't know if this is any proof of anything political, even if they are for more gun regulation and are more liberal leaning than not which I have no doubt they are (and to me rightfully so if that is the case)

Edited by WhazUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WhazUp said:

Unless the assumption is that the GNR camp will not sue for trademark infringement against more liberal leaning institutions (like a Portland fair trade coffee company, as a hypothetic) that uses the phrase "Guns and Roses", I don't know if this is any proof of anything political, even if they are for more gun regulation and are more liberal leaning than not which I have no doubt they are (and to me rightfully so if that is the case)

I think I might have been unclear in my response earlier. The lawsuit in it self is not proof of that, it was the wording of the lawsuit I was referencing! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 12:49 PM, Stay.Of.Execution said:

That's my point. Lots of americans still didn't get it that their brainless love for guns is killing their own people. But as long as subhumans like Ted Cruz still think that unlocked doors are responsible for killings in their school, this country will never change. There's no other country with so many shootings but these idiots still don't get it. A lost society 

Yeap, guns are the problem. Not the 60 IQ individuals shooting them off….

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

Stupidest argument ever. If these individuals didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to shoot them, right? Oh wait, it's part of your "freedom" to be able to kill someone

Deranged

People will, and have killed before guns existed, and they will after guns are replaced by something better. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sweersa said:

People will, and have killed before guns existed, and they will after guns are replaced by something better. 

So let's do nothing because people will always kill each other? Maybe also do nothing to prevent other crimes, right?

Your arguments are just absolutely ridiculous and stupid

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

So let's do nothing because people will always kill each other? Maybe also do nothing to prevent other crimes, right?

Your arguments are just absolutely ridiculous and stupid

If everyone in a room has a gun, would you like to be the only one without one? 

Firearms are used to stop and/or prevent crime as well.

We protect banks, sporting events, airports, or other areas with large gatherings of people with armed private security and/or police because they know what it takes to stop real force. Many civilians have better training with firearms than some law enforcement, and can and do stop crime as well. It's not unreasonable to want to have more of these people around.

Even if you magically take firearms away from everyone, people are still going to do what they do. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...