LOS ANGELES, June 12 /PRNewswire/ -- Bestex Company, Inc. today announced that on June 2, 2006, it answered the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles Case No. CV06-2636 PA (SHx) and counterclaimed against Taser International, Inc. (NASDAQ:TASR), a manufacturer of stun weapons for law enforcement and consumers, for unfair competition/false advertising under both the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125 and the California State Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq.
The Counterclaim acknowledges that two other competitors, the OTCBB traded Stinger Systems, Inc. and the AMEX traded Law Enforcement Associates Corporation, both of whom are uninvolved in the law suit, manufacture stun weapons with patent pending delivery systems, which allow their stun weapons to effectively disable violent assailants for law enforcement capture with lower powered shocks than Taser International, Inc.'s model M26 stun weapons. The Counterclaim also acknowledges that Stinger System, Inc.'s stun weapons have a patented power cut off safety feature that is properly advertised and that Law Enforcement Associates Corporation's stun weapons have a power cut off safety feature that is properly advertised. Bestex Company, Inc. has sold air guns that fire darts to shock human targets to the very small consumer market for such devices in the United States for some 20 years.
Bestex Company, Inc.'s Counterclaim against Taser International, Inc. alleges among other allegations: "8. In 1976, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission tested
two Taser Public Defenders, that is two model TF-1 tasers,
manufactured by Taser Systems, Inc. Shocks from the TF-1 were
calculated to be approximately at the human "let go threshold". The
human let go threshold for electrical currents (which is magnitudes
below the cardiac safety limits for such currents) has always been
the scientific and engineering communities accepted limit for safe
electrical shocks. Dr. Theodore Bernstein, the scientist testing the
electrical shocks from the TF1 for the Consumer Product Safety
Commission and a recognized authority in the field of electric shock
effects, concluded "The Taser electrical output is not lethal." The
United States Bureau of Engineering Standards agreed "with the
finding that the Taser should not be lethal to a normally healthy
person." 10. The model M26 taser gun outputs over 5 times the amount of electrical
power of the model TF-1 taser gun originally tested by the United
States Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1976.
11. Taser claims and has repeatedly claimed that its M18 and M26 tasers
are "non lethal".
12. Taser did no human medical testing prior to introducing either the
Model M18 or the Model M26 tasers into commerce.
13. Taser bases its claims of non-lethality on the fact that its Model
M18 and M26 tasers, which each shock with electrical power levels
well above the human "let go threshold", each also shock at power
levels below the cardiac safety power limits established by
international safety standard IEC479-2 and other electrocution
equations for shocks.
15. Taser willfully or negligently uses or has used a materially false or
misleading description of fact or a materially false or misleading
representation of fact on or in connection with the Model M26 taser
or on or in connection with the packaging for the M26 taser, within
the meaning of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
17. Taser's materially false and misleading descriptions and
representations include, but are not limited to, descriptions or
representations that state or imply that the Model M26 taser is
1) "non lethal" and 2) has cut off circuitry that turns the taser off
after 5 seconds of operation and prevents the taser from again
firing, that is outputting a disabling shock, until the taser's
trigger is again pressed by the operator.
19. Taser's materially false and misleading descriptions and
representations on or in connection with the model M26 stun pistol
misrepresent the nature, characteristics and qualities of the model
M26 taser.
21. Contrary to Taser's false and misleading representations of fact, the
cardiac safety limits are plotted on statistical curves, therefore,
there always exist a risk of electrocution from taser shocks, that
are below the cardiac safety power limits, for some portion of the
representative population. Secondary causes resulting from the higher
powered electric shocks from the model M-18 or M-26 tasers, like
uncontrolled falls and vertebral and other fractures from violent
shock induced paroxysms, also risk death. Additionally, the mere
physical exertion from an electrical shock from a high powered M18 or
M26 taser may cause an already compromised heart to arrest. Use of
Taser's M18 taser risks death. Use of Taser's M-26 taser risks
death.
22. International standard IEC479-2 and all other pertinent electrocution
equations are, also, time based equations, which are only valid for
shocks of a few seconds duration each. After such duration, the
shock's effect on the homeostasis of the human body's organ systems
rapidly reduces the safe cardiac power limit for a shock. Not only
the direct effect of the shock's current upon the human heart, but
also the indirect effects of the electrical shock upon the human
heart, must be considered. For example, a shock's contraction of the
intercostal muscles involved in the mechanics of breathing or a
shock's causing anoxia in those muscle's can lead to systemic oxygen
deprivation, additional strain on the heart and a corresponding
reduction in its ability to withstand the full effects of an electric
shock without going into cardiac arrest. Accordingly, the human let
go threshold for electric currents (which is magnitudes below the
cardiac safety limits for such currents) has always been accepted by
the scientific and engineering community as the limit for safe
electrical shocks. Use of Taser's model M18 taser risks death. Use
of Taser's model M26 taser risks death.
23. Contrary to Taser's false and misleading descriptions and
representations of fact, Taser's model M18 and M26 tasers lack any
cut off circuitry to turn the taser off after 5 seconds of operation
and prevent the taser from again firing, that is outputting a
disabling shock, until the taser's trigger is again pressed by the
operator or to intermittently interrupt the shock for any safe period
if the trigger is continuously depressed. Therefore, an M18 or M26
operator can shock human targets for long durations for which the
IEC479-2 standards and other electrocution equations are not valid.
24. Bestex has lawfully sold and lawfully sells a model DDS-100 Dual
Defense System air pistol in competition with Taser's M18 and M26
tasers. The DDS-100 also disables human targets by means of an
electric shock. The DDS-100 effectively disables human targets for
capture, but with less visibly dramatic effect than the M18 or M26
taser. The DDS-100 lacks any cut off circuitry to turn the taser off
after 5 seconds of operation and prevent the taser from again firing,
that is outputting a disabling shock, until the taser's trigger is
again pressed by the operator or to intermittently interrupt the
shock for any safe period if the trigger is continuously depressed,
as the DDS-100 shocks at power levels approximately at the human let
go threshold and at approximately the power levels of the TF1 tasers
originally tested by the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission and concluded to be "not lethal".
25. A public corporation with a market cap of tens of millions of
dollars, Stinger Systems, Inc. (OTC:STIY) (BULLETIN BOARD: STIY) also
manufactures, sells and distributes a stun pistol that disables human
targets by means of an electric shock, that shocks with higher
powered and more dramatically disabling shocks than Bestex's model
DDS-100 stun pistol and that advertises safety circuitry that
intermittently interrupts the Stinger stun pistol's shock for a safe
period if the trigger is continuously depressed. Stinger Systems,
Inc., however, does incorporate such safety circuitry into its stun
pistol as an embodiment of its U.S. Patent Number 5,193,048. Stinger
Systems, Inc.'s stun pistol also employs a novel patent pending
delivery system that allows it to dramatically and effectively
disable with lower powered shocks than either the M18 or M26 tasers. However, Stinger Systems, Inc. has only recently made significant
inroads into the stun pistol market in the United States of America.
26. Another public corporation with a market cap of tens of millions of
dollars, Law Enforcement Associates Corporation (AMEX:AID) also
manufactures, sells and distributes a stun pistol that disables human
targets by means of an electric shock, that shocks with higher
powered and more dramatically disabling shocks than Bestex's model
DDS-100 stun pistol and that advertises safety circuitry that turns
the Law Enforcement Associates Corporation's stun pistol's circuitry
off after 5 seconds of operation and prevents the stun pistol from
again firing, that is outputting a disabling shock, until the stun
pistols trigger is again pressed by the operator. Law Enforcement
Associates Corporation, however, does incorporate such safety
circuitry into its stun pistol. Law Enforcement Associates
Corporation's stun pistol also employs a novel patent pending
delivery system and proprietary FMT technology(TM) that allows it to
dramatically and effectively disable with lower powered shocks than
either the M18 or M26 tasers. However, Law Enforcement Associates
Corporation has not yet introduced its superior stun pistol into
commerce, as it has announced negotiations with an experienced
manufacturer/distributor to partner in introducing the weapon to
market.
27. Taser's materially false and misleading descriptions and
representations on or in connection with the Model M18 taser have
injured and continue to injure Bestex by causing it to lose customers
and sales resulting in business losses." Among other relief sought, Bestex Company, Inc.'s Counterclaim prays that the United States District Court will: "1.3 Invalidate U.S. Patent No. 5,078,117 for misuse; 1.7 Award Defendant Bestex damages as against Plaintiff Taser for unfair
competition/false advertising according to proof; 1.8 Permanently enjoin Plaintiff Taser, its officers, agents, employee
and all others in concert of participation with them from further
acts of unfair competition pursuant to Section 34(a) of the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1116(a), California business and Professions Code
17200, et seq. and/or equity; 1.10 Award Defendant Bestex Plaintiff Taser's profits and unjust
enrichment from its unfair competition pursuant to Section 34(a) of
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), California Business and
Professions Code 17200, et seq. and/or common law according to proof.
1.11 Award Defendant exemplary and punitive damages as against Plaintiff
Taser according to proof." Commenting, Mr. Yong Park, president of Bestex Company, Inc., stated "Bestex Company, Inc. will be seeking arrangements to cooperate to exchange expert information with any Plaintiffs, who have products liability suits pending against Taser International, Inc. Bestex Company, Inc. believes that its suit against Taser International, Inc. will benefit from any such information supplied it by any such Plaintiffs. Those suing Taser International, Inc. for products liability should also reap enormous benefits from any expert reports and opinions that might be supplied them by Bestex Company, Inc., especially, considering Bestex Company, Inc.'s over 20 years experience with stun weapon technology and its long standing relationships with scientific, medical and engineering experts in the field of stun weapon technology and the effects of stun weapons on the human physiology. Any products liability Plaintiff's, interested in the possibility of arranging such a cooperative relation with Bestex Company, Inc., should contact its attorney as listed on its Answer for case CV06-2636 PA (SHx)." DATASOURCE: Bestex Company, Inc.
CONTACT: Media, James McNulty for Bestex Company, Inc., +1-909-557-3923
|