On 1 March, 2011 Digital Concealment Systems, LLC filed a suit in Federal District Court in Columbus, Georgia against 5.11 Inc. The full particulars of the suit are available in the public record documents below.
It is important to note that this case was just filed and it appears that DCS filed the suit in response to a series of cease and desist letters issued by 5.11 to DCS and licensees of their camouflage pattern. Also, the suit’s impact, if any, on DCS so close to release of the Army’s Camo Improvement Effort cannot yet be determined. However, according to claims made by DCS in the suit, licensees have curtailed production of products in the A-TACS pattern based on cease and desist letters issued by 5.11 so if you are wondering what is taking so long to get new A-TACS kit to the market, this may be an explanation.
Apparently, 5.11 issued cease and desist letters in mid-February to DCS and licensees due to allegations that the term “A-TACS” was too similar to 5.11’s “A.T.A.C.”. Consequently, DCS goes into quite a bit of detail in their filing as to how different “A-TACS” is from “A.T.A.C.”. A search of the US Patent & Trademark Office shows that 5.11 does in fact own a trademark on the term “A.T.A.C.” issued just a year ago on March 5th, 2010 but filed on June 8, 2005. Interestingly, it was issued specifically for use with “footwear; boots” but in the overall category of “clothing products”. Generally, this means that the term is reserved for 5.11’s use in that market segment but not in other, unrelated markets.
Oddly enough, A-TACS is an acronym for Advanced TActical Camouflage System and is registered as servicemark 3,815,288 for the “Licensing of intellectual property in the field of camouflage patterns”. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
In the interest of full disclosure we want you to know that DCS, owners of the the A-TACS camouflage pattern are sponsors of SSD. Not that this is an issue, we would have written about it no matter which companies were involved. We hope that these two companies can come to an agreeable solution to their impasse and go back to doing what they do best; producing kit for you.
The comments section is available for your thoughts.
I don’t have a comment about this particular issue, just a general question: Why aren’t comments open on all posts? I would be interested in some general thoughts and discussion on your regular posts, and I assume your other readers would as well.
We have just started experimenting with comments being open. Generally, we don’t have enough time to engage over every article.
[…] Digital Concealment Systems Files Suit Against 5.11 On Tuesday, March 1, Digital Concealment Systems, filed a complaint for declaratory relief and damages against tactical clothing manufacturing giant, 5.11 Tactical, as reported by Soldier Systems. […]
That’s not exactly fair for DCS, as they use a different acronym, with a different meaning, a different pronunciation, and for a completely different product. (IP vs clothing item)
5.11 should get their priorities strait, and instead of wasting money and reputation attacking a company who produces intellectual property that they may eventually wish to use, should get back to designing quality tactical clothing.
It would be better for both if the two trademarks merely peacefully co-existed. I personally would like to see an A.T.A.C. boot in A-TACS.
Did someone say A-TAC? : http://madcomputerscientist.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d3azgu9