21 replies to this topic

[timkel]

Another creation due to the 86 ban.
http://www.brpguns.com/stgthompson.htm

[colt21a]

yes we must configure and sell whatever we can,supply and demand...there are 3 million thompson owner's, we must have more thompson's.semi.full auto,crank fed,whatever there is.duct taped part's kit, dummie's and blank firing.even castro has a few put away for a rainy day in cuba.

and remember if it's $7,000.00 this week, next month it will be $14,000.00 and the month after that $28,000.00

it's a wonder when one come's up for sale.there are not one buyer's bidding.but one hundred.these are the worst of time's,and they are the worst of time's.

now go get that check book and fire one off..before next week and they will be all gone like the L DRUM'S.never fear the board is here!

take care,the r man

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

With the Thompson name on the receiver as well. So much for Numruch/Trast/Kahr exclusivity.

[TD.]

Notice how you don't see the name Thompson in the bullet logo. It appears the lineage of Thompson, Maguire, Kilgore, Willis, Numrich, Trast and Kahr continues on...but what do I know

[Roland, Headless Thompson Gunner]

Arty, Would these be considered 'replicas"?

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

TD,

Seems Numrich didn't pass along to Trast the trademark bullet logo since back in 1985 Trast had to apply for it. Seems Trast also had to apply for the Auto-Ord-Co name back in 1974. Seems Numrich only passed along to Trast the crated assets.

Roland,
Replica, facsimile, counterfeit, copy, repro, etc..Same as a WH.

[Roland, Headless Thompson Gunner]

Arty, Would these be considered 'replicas"?

[TD.]

Arthur,
Key word being "seems." From a legal and business standpoint it all makes perfect sense to me - but I will not bother you with lawyerly matters.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

TD,

Speaking of lawyerly matters, any business that legally owned trademarks, name brands, and logos, with exclusivity, would not need to apply for them in the 1970's and 1980's if they supposedly owned them in the 1950's.

If you find the word "seems" insufficient and open to interpretation, I submit Numrich's 1967 anemic entitlement that he "probably" owned these things, as truly non committal. Key word being "probably." One would expect a more definitive defense, but, hey, Numrich knew all along what the score was. Trast looked at the scoreboard in 74 and 85 when he had no choice but to apply for the proper licensing for a "new" and completely different AO named business.

[TD.]

Arthur,
I see that you still don't let facts get in the way of your position. Let's see, what exactly was said by George in 1967 -

Article by Ray Bearse, titled, The Thompson Submachine Gun, Weapon of War and Peace, published in the 1967 edition of Gun Digest - “Numrich states that, since his company holds the patents, trademarks, etc. on the Thompson SMG, it is doubtful if any other company could produce a Thompson of any kind.”

Sounds pretty clear cut to me. What was that key word again? supposedly...seems....probably....

[Norm]

John Jr,

It may be time for the "Aw jeeez..." picture again!

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

TD,

Fact: In 1967, Numrich did not own patents, trademarks, names, etc. If he did, Trast need not apply for them in 74 and 85.
Fact: The Gun Digest article was for Numrich's own aggrandizement. Similar to Earl's article in the 1973 Guns & Ammo.
Fact: Numrich 's "doubtful" was carefully chosen since previous and subsequent history proved that since he wasn't using any of these names or patents, others did and would use them. See facsimile "Thompson" at top of this thread.

Norm,

If you sense deja vu all over again, why continue reading the thread? Prompting JJ and his prosaic cut and paste jobs is infinitely more obnoxious than the oft times revisited broken chain of AOC.

[Norm]

Arthur,

Please don't read to much into my last post. I am just saying that people on both sides of this arguement will never be swayed to the other side.

I agree with the fact that if someone has to apply for a trademark, that means that they didn't own it (until the aplication was approved.)

After all, I own a Thompson replica! It really doesn't bother me if it is not true to Thompson bloodline. I have no problem telling people that my gun was not made by AOC (or evenWH.) This makes my gun a replica of a replica!

I am just saying that we have been down this road before.

Norm

[43FordGPW]

I just love reading the opposition posts Colt or Khar or West Hurly, this could also be classified as a
class struggle for those who own a Thompson. I've a Khar and had it for about 2 years now I thought it would be fun to have one and I've not had a problem with it at all. Shoots like a dream.
Guns are made to kill and the last time I looked my Khar would kill you dead just as easy as a Colt will, so why go on.
Joe

Just adding my 2 cents.........................

[TD.]

Registration of the trademark by Numrich/Trast in 1984 has nothing to do with whether it was previously owned by George Numrich. The retention of a trademark does require a little maintenance to avoid lapse or abandonment or worse, “unintentional abandonment.” The production of the Thompson at Numrich Arms after the assets of Auto-Ordnance Corporation were purchased was piecemeal at best. Most Thompson’s were made with leftover parts obtained during the initial purchase. When forming a new corporation to manufacture the Thompson and other firearms, the filing for new trademark protections prevents all the unnecessary problems that may arise down the road from any lack of maintenance on the original trademark registration. Was it necessary? I don’t know, but I do know it made good business sense – and has nothing to do with whether or not Numrich purchased all the assets of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation from Willis in 1951. It has also been reported by some that this new trademark was for the production of pistols. That is true but not exactly complete as the Trademark records show the intended use of this trademark was for “Firearms, including cannons, machine guns, sporting arms, gun parts, pistols, shotguns, rifles, sub-machine guns and gun grips.” Obviously, Trast planned to use the trademark on more than just sub-machine guns – and he did just that. Would this be another reason to seek new trademark registration?

[SecondAmend]

I believe all of the Thompson submachine gun patents listed on the side of the receiver had expired by 1951.

[TD.]

I believe all the patents listed on the side of the Thompson receiver expired before Russell Maguire took control.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

QUOTE (TD. @ Apr 2 2006, 07:34 AM)

When forming a new corporation to manufacture the Thompson and other firearms, the filing for new trademark protections prevents all the unnecessary problems that may arise down the road from any lack of maintenance on the original trademark registration. Was it necessary? I don’t know, but I do know it made good business sense – and has nothing to do with whether or not Numrich purchased all the assets of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation.

TD,

Your first paragraph defines the essence of what constitutes a wholly new business separate and unrelated to the original one that was retained by the Maguire family in 1944.

Why do you suppose Numrich was asked the question by the author of the Gun Digest article if he exercised all the rights to all things Thompson? Why ask if any other entity could manufacture Thompson's if it was common knowledge that Numrich had purchased anything other than crates in 1951?

Since Numrich didn't do anything with the Auto-Ord-Co name, the logo, or the name Thompson stamped on any firearm since buying the crates, it was a seminal question to be posed to Numrich. At least now you acknowledge that Numrich never made any Thompson's or he would have applied for these rights back in the 1950's.

Your second paragraph undermines your first and is intellectually dishonest. Insert any other name in these business transactions and you would readily concede that the "new" company could not be related to the one in 1944.

You give no quarter about this obvious and uncontested break in the chain of the Thompson lineage even when you now reluctantly admit Numrich never made any TSMG's and Trast's versions were made under a totally different AOC name in 1975.

Why is it so important for you to keep this manufactured Camelot Kennedy mystique alive? What is the disgrace in recognizing that a lot of things happened between 1944 (or 1951 if you prefer), and 1975 when Trast finally made his version of the Thompson?

I still have no idea what sort of event, or lack there of, you consider constitutes a disruption in the lineage of any business entity.

Norm,

Maybe so. But too many things continually invalidate the presumption of the "un- broken chain" myth.

[TD.]

Norm,
Of course, we have been down this road before. I understand where Arthur is coming from, but everything cited by him that invalidates the chain of succession is just a misstatement of facts. See above and below for examples.

Arthur,
It is well settled Auto-Ordnance Corporation changed business directions and names in 1944. As we all know, the Thompson business was relegated to a division of the new corporate entity, Maguire Industries, Inc. This new division was appropriately named the Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries. What the Maguire retained was Maguire Industries, Inc – before and after he sold off the Thompson business to Kilgore Manufacturing. If you want to follow the corporation, you will not be following the Thompson business, as it was sold off in its entirety in 1949 to Kilgore.

As everyone who has read the 1967 Gun Digest article knows, Numrich was asked the question about ownership of the Thompson because another company in 1967 was stating it was going into the Tommy Gun business. George answered the question directly, without any “probably” and this other company never produced Tommy Guns. (Of course, Arthur knows all this, he just wants to change what happened to fit his version of things.) Others on the board have cited similar statements of ownership by George Numrich over the years as published in other periodicals.

Numrich did manufacture and sell Thompson’s after he purchased the assets of the former Auto-Ordnance Corporation. It was not a big operation, but it was nonetheless an operation. It is also well settled Numrich/Trast created a new corporation to house the assets related to the Tommy Gun – and named it the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York. Same Thompson business, different corporation. There was no disruption in the line of succession. Apparently Kahr Arms felt the same way as they purchased the Thompson business directly from Numrich/Trast. Please don’t start the story Kahr Arms did not know what they were buying. There is nothing covert or dishonest about what happened to the Thompson business after 1949.

Norm,
You have to decide which path to take. Follow the corporation and you end up in Dallas, Texas and out of the Thompson business as of 1949. Follow the Thompson business and you end up at Numrich Arms and later, Kahr Arms. It is a simple choice. However, having the all the facts as they happened, not like others would have liked them to have happened, makes whatever decision you make an informed one.

[Norm]

TD (and AF),

I really don't have a position on this issue. I am one of the uneducated masses on this subject. I don't fully agree or disagree with either of you.

Both of you guys obviously have done some heavy research on the Auto-Ord-Co.

It just seems like the same arguements over and over again.

You guys continue on; I hope this matter works itself out.

Now shake hands and come fighting!! Remember, no low-blows!!

Norm