The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

yep, seems so.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014 ... Newsletter

In 2009 Heckler & Koch (USA) sued German Sport Guns GmbH (GSG), who manufactured the GSG GSG-5 .22 rifle, and American Tactical Imports (ATI) who imported the GSG-5 into the USA. They successfully argued that the GSG-5 infringed upon their design patents for the H&K MP5. They took court action soon after licensing the design to Umarex who were designing a competing MP5-patterned .22 rifle. GSG paid a settlement of $300,000 and agreed to modify the design of the GSG-5 so it looked less like an MP5.

But, things just got interesting! GSG and ATI are now suing Heckler & Koch GmbH (Germany) and Heckler & Koch (USA) for $16.5 million in punitive damages. GSG claims they now have proof that H&K did not own the rights to the MP5 design when they sued GSG and “forced GSG into a settlement”

Er, explain that to me again... H&K _not_ having the rights to the H&K MP5????

Got me thinking too so i read this article:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014 ... p5-design/

GSG now told that Heckler & Koch is being sued along with the U.S. importer for infringement of design rights and fraud to $ 16.5 million. GSG CEO Michael Swoboda admits that it is basically a counterclaim, because H & K demanded just as much millions since 2011.
…

GSG-Chief Swoboda says openly that the pressure on H & K is being increased to achieve readiness to talk.

In other words, GSG want to settle as soon as possible. The primary problem for H&K is that they would lose rights to the MP5 design if they lose the lawsuit, which would end royalty payments from all licensees of the design as well as open the floodgates to clones.
- See more at: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014 ... CsKVS.dpuf

This can't be helping either;

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014 ... Newsletter

User702 wrote:Er, explain that to me again... H&K _not_ having the rights to the H&K MP5????

There are a few theories doing the rounds about what the basis of argument is by ATI and GSG. The most popular so far is because the MP5 is a derivative of the G3 it is the now defunct West German government who held the rights to the basic design. This is based on the fact that it was German government who decided to buy a derivative of tthe Spanish CETME Modelo B which in itself was derived from the German StG-45(M) and the French CEAM Modèle 1950. Initially Germany purchased a number of CETME rifle off the Spanish manufacturer designated as Automatisches Gewehr G3.

Germany wanted to licence build the CETME rifle in country but the Dutch firm Nederlandse Wapen en Munitiefabriek (NWM) held production and sales rights to the CETME design outside of Spain. The German government gained production rights by sweetening the deal and offering NWM a contract to make 20mm ammunition for the their airforce. Once they gained production rights the building of the rifles was contracted out to both Rheinmetall and H&K.

Now on that basis it would appear that H&K and ATI might well have a good case except...

In 1969, Rheinmetall gave up production rights to the G3 in exchange for H&K's promise not to bid on MG 3 production. Later in 1977, the West German government ceded ownership of G3 production and sales rights exclusively to H&K.

On the other hand if we are talking about copyright it is a 48 year old gun so I am not sure how that would stand. Or are H&K treating the basic design like a trademark?

On a side note this video from the always excellent Forgotten Weapons Youtube channel gives some insight into the progenitors to the CETME and G3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEPwmYcCPFs