Posted 23 March 2007 - 07:17 PM
My opinion (and it is just my opinon) was never meant to discredit you or anyone. I never meant to offend you.
You have much more knowledge on the history of the Thompson than most on this board, and am grateful that you are willing to share it.
If you (or anyone else) showed some documentation on the transfer of all rights, trademarks, etc.; then I wouldn't have any problem accepting your point of veiw.
For the record, I don't think that WH Thompsons are any less of a SMG than a Colt or Savage. Remember, I am the guy that has a replica of a replica, so I am not trying to say that WH owners are a lesser group than Colt owners.
I think this is just one of those subjects that has two hard sides and everyone goes to one side or the other.
I hope there are no hard feelings- МИР!
Posted 23 March 2007 - 07:52 PM
|QUOTE (dalbert @ Mar 23 2007, 06:30 PM)|
Norm seems to want to discredit something prior to even knowing what it is.
I've put a lot of effort into researching the TSMG, and its history is rewarding and vast. I usually enjoy sharing my thoughts and finds with other Thompson enthusiasts, including those who disagree with the opinions I derive. Lately, posting about such things has not seemed worth the time, and I need to spend it on other projects.
I'm going to take leave of the "Replica" subject for a while, and posting on this board for the time being. Research continues, and there's a bunch of Thompson history still out there...
dave KEEP up the good work, and tell IRA hi! i've not spoken to him in year's.however still have that neat valentines day card he sent.probably a collector item today. R.Ron
Posted 23 March 2007 - 08:59 PM
There are several thing and ways to register. You can register a mark under the federal system with the US Patent and Trademark office and obtain trademark protection in the US. You can register under a state system, i.e. Tennessee, and obtain protection in that state, but no where else unless you obtain additional common law rights.
All of which is different than registering a corporate name in a state corporation commission setting. When you let the corporation expire, you loose the name. The only thing the state corp. commission lets you have is somewhat exclusive use of the name in that state.
For example, even though there an Auto Ordnance Corporation may be registered in Tennessee, I could probably register an Auto Ordnance Corporation of Bristol. That's the way cellular businesses manage to register thousands of Verizion stores, Verizion of Bristol, Inc., Verizion of Johnson City, Inc., Lebanon Verizion, etc. Then you simply file a fictious name registration and say you are doing bussiness under a different name.
In registering a trademark in the federal system, you have to swear under oath certain facts. Usually, one is first use. Now, just because you come up with the name, doesn't necessarily mean it can be trademarked. It must first be used in "interstate" commerce, compared to intrastate commerce. First use grants rights. Wonder what was sworn to in the second set of affidavits? Wonder who swore the second time around that he was "first use"?
Then under the federal system, there is a period when the mark is filed to challenge the registration, and a period of contestability after the registration is granted. If nothing is done, then absolute title to the mark vests in the registrant.
I think this is correct, but I could be mistaken on some of this, and it may vary from state to state,
Edited by TNKen, 23 March 2007 - 09:00 PM.
Posted 24 March 2007 - 05:21 PM
Your last post is interesting. Too bad you don’t know how to decipher the information. May I suggest a call to the clerk’s office – it certainly helped me understand the meaning of your post.
This “somebody” that George Numrich told about owning all the rights to the Thompson in 1967 was none other than the Editor of Gun Digest, John T. Amber. These were two very well respected and powerful men in the firearms field at that time. You can’t pass that statement off as George Numrich did not know what he was talking about – and you certainly have offered nothing but hyperbole to counter it. I don’t think I need anymore evidence because no one has ever disproved this claim of ownership made in a nationally recognized firearms publication with international distribution.
The 1967 article by Ray Bearse is also a very good article on the Thompson for that time period. It is still good reading today and worth having in your library. I recall Dave reported that this article referenced several 30 caliber carbine Thompson’s Numrich manufactured in 1954. Again, this reference to manufacturing was just ignored.
I agree with Dave that it really doesn’t matter what is posted about the Thompson succession because several people on this board have their minds made up on this topic and nothing is going to change it. I don’t post for those few; I just keep posting to point out the obvious so as to cast in a different light what others claim as the history of the Thompson since 1949. I am also interested if anyone has any real evidence that would show George Numrich did not purchase all rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun in 1951.
I am glad you are enjoying the posts.
I think your post is right on point. I previously posted that I believe George Numrich probably let the Thompson Trademark logo expire, thus the need for the new registration in 1984. (Now this is just my opinion; I have never fully researched this point because all I cared about was that the trademark would have been in effect when George Numrich acquired the Thompson in 1951. Dave covered this issue in a post on a similar thread not too long ago. If I am not mistaken, Dave believed the Thompson Trademark would have expired in the early 1960’s without renewal. I believe Doug Richardson also came to the same conclusion in one of his writings.)
Posted 24 March 2007 - 09:49 PM
Looks like Greg Jenks of Numrich GUN PARTS Corp, in business since 1950, felt it was necessary to file for the NEW AOC name in 1974. Yet the original AOC name became COMPONENTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, and still was as late as 1982.
The fact that Trast and Jenks were going to manufacture their version of a 1927A1 Semi-Auto Thompson, as well as a full auto version, they needed to have their ducks in a row to cover the use of this NEW AOC name. I wonder why doesn't show Kahr as the current owner of the New AOC name as they are in Pearl River, NY as well as Worcester, MA.
If you were referencing Thomas Nelson's quote in 'The World's Submachine Guns," where he states, "The Numrich Arms Corporation of West Hurley, New York, which absorbed the Auto-Ordnance Corporation after World War II," the context was that NAC was in possession of the Warner & Swasey prototype Thompson's. Notice Nelson is careful to say assimilate, not purchased.
I promise I will chain up my dogmatic distemper if you would relay what Trast confided in you last April. Did he tell you why George used 1940's photos in his NAC catalogs, and did he tell you what became of the post 1944 manufactured Thompson's George alluded to in his catalogs of the 1950's and 1960's.
The only reason the Thompson trademark would have expired in the 1960's was from lack of use. Another indication that George didn't need to file for trademark rights since he wasn't using the bullet logo on a newly made receiver.
But isn't it sufficient that you believe what you believe regarding Numrich and how there is absolutely no change in the pre 1945 AOC and the AOC of today? I don't think anyone is trying to deny you your faith.
Posted 24 March 2007 - 10:26 PM
No record on file in New York!
No record on file in Massachusetts!
New York "AOC" corporate record posted earlier, shows current "active" owner of AOC name is Greg Jenks of West Hurley, NY (Numrich Arms). It will be interesting to see what (if any) "cards" Kahr is actually holding in this game!
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William Francis Galvin
Secretary of the Commonwealth, Corporations Division
One Ashburton Place, 17th floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02108-1512
Telephone: (617) 727-9640
KAHR INC. Summary Screen
Help with this form
The exact name of the Foreign Corporation: KAHR INC.
Entity Type: Foreign Corporation
Identification Number: 133786285
Old Federal Employer Identification Number (Old FEIN): 000000000
Date of Registration in Massachusetts: 10/26/1994
Date of Withdrawal: 10/14/2003
The is organized under the laws of: State: DE Country: USA on: 08/02/1994
Current Fiscal Month / Day: 03 / 31 Previous Fiscal Month / Day: 03 / 31
The location of its principal office: No. and Street: ONE BLUE HILL PLAZA
P.O. BOX 1518
City or Town: PEARL RIVER State: NY Zip: 10913 Country: USA
The location of its Massachusetts office, if any: No. and Street: 130 GODDARD MEMORIAL DRIVE
City or Town: WORCESTER State: MA Zip: 01603 Country: USA
Name and address of the Registered Agent: Name: HIQ CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.
No. and Street: 9 CRESTWAY E.
City or Town: BOSTON State: MA Zip: 02128 Country: USA
The officers and all of the directors of the corporation:
Title Individual Name
First, Middle, Last, Suffix Address (no PO Box)
Address, City or Town, State, Zip Code Expiration
PRESIDENT FRANK E. HARRIS
TREASURER RANDALL CASSEDAY
SECRETARY RANDALL CASSEDAY
DIRECTOR SOJI WADA
DIRECTOR KOOK JIN MOON
business entity stock is publicly traded:
The total number of shares and par value, if any, of each class of stock which the business entity is authorized to issue:
Class of Stock Par Value Per Share
Enter 0 if no Par Total Authorized by Articles
of Organization or Amendments Num of Shares Total Par Value
Num of Shares
CNP $0.00000 0 $0.00 0
Consent X Manufacturer Confidential Data Does Not Require Annual Report
Partnership X Resident Agent X For Profit Merger Allowed
Select a type of filing from below to view this business entity filings: ALL FILINGS Amended Foreign Corporations Certificate Annual Report Annual Report - Professional Application for Reinstatement Articles of Consoldation - Foreign and Unregistered Foreign Articles of Consolidation - Foreign and Domestic Articles of Correction Articles of Merger - Domestic and Foreign Articles of Merger - Foreign and Foreign Articles of Merger - Foreign and Unregistered Foreign Certificate of Resignation of Resident Agent Certificate of Withdrawal Foreign Corporation Certificate Revocation by SOC Statement of Appointment of Registered Agent Statement of Change of Registered Agent/Registered Office Statement of Change of Registered Office Address by Registered Agent Statement of Resignation of Registered Agent
© 2001 - 2007 Commonwealth of Massachusetts
All Rights Reserved
Posted 25 March 2007 - 07:07 PM
I am glad you found the reference by Thomas Nelson dealing with the question of Thompson succession. Of course, Numrich Arms absorbed the assets of the former Auto-Ordnance Corporation that were related to the Thompson Submachine Gun. Absorbed, assimilate or whatever word you would like to use, we all know Numrich purchased these assets from Frederic A. Willis in 1951 - and the assets included the prototype Thompson’s (along with the Blish pistol). This is just one more source that you will have to discredit if you continue with your mantra that the Thompson succession ended in 1944. Mr. Nelson is certainly as well known and respected as John Amber and George Numrich; thanks for sharing this information with the board. If Dave or I brought this information to light, it would just be ignored like everything else we post on the history of the Thompson succession.
I believe you and 1921A are on to something with your Corporation research. I believe I know the answer but would not want to deprive both of you from performing new research in this area as my interest really ends before the Thompson was sold to Kahr Arms. As a word of advice, don't get hung up on the corporate form of ownership.
Posted 25 March 2007 - 07:59 PM
As late as 1963, Nelson, not trying to make waves, said "absorbed," when he could have just as easily said "purchased," bought," "became the sole proprietor of," yet he was rather non committal. Why? This is a very carefully chosen word. It shows that Nelson was somewhat bemused as to the intent of Maguire, or for that matter, Kilgore and Willis, when Numrich made his deal for the crated assets.
The facts as to what George did actually obtain other than crates back in 1951 was still dogging him at the time of the 1967 Bearse article. Otherwise, why would ownership of the rights to the Thompson brand, logo, patents, and use of the original AOC name even come up during the interview?
Imagine Willie G. Davidson and Vaughn Beals being asked whether another motorcyle manufacturer could turn out Harley Davidson's 16 years after AMF sold them the business in 1981.
Why do you and Dave consider the legion of skeptics to be invincibly ignorant instead of having a healthy dose of Kolchak cynicism? The nagging suspicion regarding this 1951 sale, fueled by lack of independent documentation, has finally come to a head in the last decade. Until the details of the 1951 sale become public, this is one controversy that can never be resolved.
Posted 25 March 2007 - 09:48 PM
I don't like to guess what an author is thinking. I prefer to take it as written; I am comfortable with his use of the word "absorbed." It bypasses any need to reference Kilgore and Willis and gets the Thompson to Numrich Arms - the point Mr. Nelson was making.
If you read the Bearse article, you would see why the topic came up at the end of the story by John Amber, the Editor of Gun Digest. The reason is quite similar to your Willie and Vaughn example. If you don't have the article, send me your address and I will mail it to you.
Happily, I don't see legion's of skeptics on this issue. I do see a few that will never be convinced and a few more that are still confused with the different corporations. Mainstream Thompson enthusiasts have no problem with the history of the Thompson I have laid out on Page 1 of this thread. But I do enjoy the discussion. There is a wealth of information in this thread and you and many others have helped make that possible.
Posted 25 March 2007 - 11:06 PM
Posted 26 March 2007 - 04:30 PM
1. Statements are made by Numrich, et, al and since they have not been refuted, they are accepted as fact. And the facts are then used to substantiate a position.
2. Statements are not accepted as any indication as fact. Only written documents are acceptable as fact. If no documents are presented, it did not happen.
I'm a Detective by profession. In a court of (criminal) law both can be accepted in evalauting the evidence.
Keep up the debate, but keep it on an intellectual plane.
You have convinced me I need a 1928 to accompany my WH M1.
Posted 27 March 2007 - 06:32 AM
Excellent overview. I am glad you enjoyed the posts. Everyone needs a 1928 Thompson!!!
Yes, we will remain friends. You have authored some of the best posts on the board. I understand your position. I could profess it without missing a beat. However, I happen to think it is incorrect. I don't understand your last ditch argument statement. I believe I also encouraged Arthur and 1921A to continue their research. Question: Have your read the 1967 Ray Bearse Gun Digest article?
Posted 28 March 2007 - 09:48 AM
But it is considered in a court of law,
Posted 28 March 2007 - 09:34 PM
1) The Colt guns were a contract, not made by AOC, correct???
2) Many of the AOC guns were contract, and not made by AOC, (Savage) nor were they manufactured to the original specifications set out by the 1921 patents. (War exigencies and War Department request for changes.)
3) The post-war guns are parts kits, slap-togethers, half-machined, or outright completely new weapons that are in no way the same in fit and function as the originals. (The semi's, all inclusive.) The WH's I have seen are very poor in quality, and are a poor imitation of the first 2 iterations of the Thompson.
So.....does it really matter who owns the Thompson name??? If I owned the Copyright to the Sphinx, and I were stacking shit and straw bricks along the Nile River, am I producing another Sphinx???
The Thompson name could have been legally transferred and trademarked on toilet paper. (FWIW that is what the "new" Thompson's seem to resemble.) Does it matter? In all essence, the "real" Thompson's died when the last one came off the assembly line during WWII.
Just a series of reasonable questions. Let me know what you think Phil!
Posted 05 April 2007 - 12:12 AM
As to the question whether Numrich ever manufactured any Thompson Submachine Guns, Mr. Bearse, using Numrich as his informational source, says no.
“During the 1950’s Numrich Arms ASSEMBLED Thompsons from spare parts. Assembly of M21/28 was discontinued in early 1961.”
Later in the article Bearse says,
“A FEW Thompsons have been made up by Numrich since the early 1950’s.”
“Today (1967), Numrich sells ASSEMBLED M1a1’s to law enforcement agencies and department of state approved foreign customers.”
In regards to those intentionally misleading photos in Numrich’s catalogs of racks of hundreds of “newly” 1950 manufactured Thompsons, Numrich stated,
“We sell 10 to 12 guns per year.”
A demand easily accommodated by those existing TSMG’s in the Willis crates from 1951.
In 1967, Bearse says,
“In 1951, George Numrich, Jr. ACQUIRED the name “Auto Ordnance” and a large stock of guns and parts. In 1963, Thomas B. Nelson, when describing this 1951 transaction, used the word “ABSORBED.” George didn’t have any problem with these ambiguous terms until the Bearse article was about to go to press. That's when George yearned for the more definitive "purchased," "owned," "sole rights to," and "monopoly over" characterizations of his NAC enterprises regarding the Thompson.
When Numrich discovered that Bearse was going to include in his history of the Thompson article two other gun manufactures, George contacted the editors of Gun Digest, just before publication, to add his statement that he believed nobody other than himself could make a Thompson in any form.
In 1963, John Martin of Tri-State Tool & Die Company, who unlike Numrich up to that time, was going to make his own receivers and frames and use surplus Savage/AO parts for his "Guerrilla" semi-auto Thompson. And in late 1964, Eagle Gun Company also had a version in the works. Both entrepreneurs claimed they had ATF approved designs for a semi -auto only Thompson with a 16 ½ inch barrel.
Bearse did include Numrich’s claim, but went ahead and cited these firearm makers and their proposed single-auto Thompsons in the article anyway. Got to love that.
While Tri-State Tool did indeed make 100 M1 Carbines from salvaged GI parts. They used welded GI receivers, Universal receivers, and commercial barrels. What ever became of their semi-auto TSMG is unknown, but they did run afoul of ATF for selling a complete M2 kit. Perhaps that discouraged them from any further pursuit of the semi-auto Thompson.
What this article does indicate unequivocally is that nobody in the firearm community, whether they be manufacturers or magazine publishers, had any knowledge Numrich owned anything other than Thompson parts. Why would they when any reference to NAC regarding the Thompson name, AOC name, patents, trademarks, etc was described in terms of "ACQUIRED" and "ABSORBED."
Ray Bearse references an unnamed source for this tidbit:
“For many years the federal government forbade the manufacture or importation of any arm, even a single shot, if it resembled the classic Thompson……This ruling has been rescinded.”
Is the reader to infer from this that it was the government that restricted firearm manufacturers from making Thompsons post WWII and that it had nothing to do with Numrich’s claim of exclusive proprietorship? When was this law enacted? When was it rescinded?
It is interesting that Numrich became possessive of claimed rights to all things Thompson only when a firearms company would get their semi-auto Thompson into production before he could. The funny thing is, Numrich lost interest in producing his own version of the semi-auto Thompson by 1969, and left it up to Trast to manufacture it in 1975.
Numrich attempted to claim in this article that the name “Tommy Gun is a registered trademark of Numrich Arms Company.” Since the original AOC only managed to trademark the “Tommy Gun” name because they stamped it on the requisite number of their Thompsons, how could Numrich assume this trademark when he never used it himself on newly made Thompson Submachine Guns?
Mr. Bearse’s own reporting in some instances contradicts his own previous passages. For instance, he states:
“In November, 1939, Russell Maguire presented Gen. C.T. Harris with the 250,000th M1928A1.”
But pages before, Bearse does get the April, 1940 initial production date for the Savage Thompson correct.
But the real corker is that Bearse, for some inexplicable reason, does provide specific attribution for the bizarre contention that a 1928 TSMG can function without a Blish lock.
“During tests in 1928, the British discovered no one could tell when firing whether the Blish lock was in or out of the gun.”
Bearse never corrects this easily debunked assertion in his text. Of course he never challenged Numrich’s assertion that he owned all things Thompson either. Maybe Bearse was the inspiration for Fox News' motto, "We Report. You Decide."
Posted 05 April 2007 - 12:35 PM
Posted 05 April 2007 - 12:48 PM
Yes, they were M1 carbines. Unfortunately, I didn't make that clear. I have amended that for clarity. But that does not change the complexion of the situation in the 1960's when nobody thought the Thompson firearm was off limits to new designers.
The fact that Tri-State was pursuing a semi-auto only Thompson in 1963 speaks for itself. Whether they ever went further than prototypes for ATF is unknown. But it sure doesn't seem that any meaningful discouragement to these Thompson entrepreneurs came from Numrich, but rather from design teething problems or just general lack of consumer interest at the time.
Posted 05 April 2007 - 04:06 PM
Posted 05 April 2007 - 08:19 PM
This is not a big issue in the Thompson community. Most everyone I know understands how the Thompson moved from General Thompson to Numrich Arms and all the parties in between.
I stopped reading when you mixed up Thompson’s and M1 carbines. However, I am sure my response to Arthur will cover any questions in your post.
I never said the Bearse article was the definitive proof regarding the succession of the Thompson after it left Maguire Industries. However, I did state the remarks by George Numrich in the article have never been contradicted by anyone. I commend you for finally taking the time to acquire and read the Bearse article. First off, let’s forget about the manufacturing question on this thread. It is a great issue and worthy of discussion – but it only clouds the main topic of succession – and the two areas are not related.
In 1967, Bearse says,
|“In 1951, George Numrich, Jr. ACQUIRED the name “Auto Ordnance” and a large stock of guns and parts.|
|In 1963, Thomas B. Nelson, when describing this 1951 transaction, used the word “ABSORBED.”|
|George didn’t have any problem with this words until the Bearse article was about to go to press. That's when George yearned for the more definitive "purchased," "owned," "sole rights to," and "monopoly over" characterizations of his NAC enterprises regarding the Thompson.|
|When Numrich discovered that Bearse was going to include in his history of the Thompson article two other gun manufactures, John Martin of Tri-State Tool & Die Company, who unlike Numrich, was going to make his own receivers and frames and use surplus Savage/AO parts, and Eagle Gun Company, both of whom claimed they had ATF approved designs for a semi -auto only Thompson with a 16 ½ inch barrel, George contacted the editors of Gun Digest, just before publication, to add his statement that he believed nobody other than himself could make a Thompson in any form.|
|Bearse did include Numrich’s claim, but went ahead and cited these firearm makers and their proposed single-auto Thompsons in the article anyway. Got to love that.|
|Tri-State Tool did indeed make 100 Carbines from salvaged GI parts. They used welded GI receivers, Universal receivers, and commercial barrels. What ever became of their semi-auto TSMG is unknown, but they did run afoul of ATF for selling a complete M2 kit. Perhaps that discouraged them from any further pursuit of the semi-auto Thompson.|
I do agree there are some inaccuracies in the Bearse article. There are also inaccuracies in every published work involving the Thompson. However, all and all, the Bearse article for its time period was an excellent article that imparted new information. The great majority of the information reported has survived the test of time and it is required reading for all Thompson enthusiasts. Well, that about wraps up everything you have posted regarding succession and ownership rights. I find when I remove your speculative remarks that you have not contradicted anything George Numrich (or Thomas Nelson) have stated and published regarding the Thompson succession. Thank-you for your contribution to this ever evolving story.