(CN) - The maker an assault rifle-themed shot glass agreed to stop trash talking the product's distributor on social media, a consent order filed in a Virginia circuit court says.
Leitner-Wise Manufacturing obtained a patent for a novelty shot glass based on an M-16 flash suppressor in 2012.
A flash suppressor is a device attached to the muzzle of a rifle that reduces the visibility of the flash that occurs when the gun is fired. Several different flash suppressors have been designed over the years for the M-16, one of the most widely used military rifles in the world.
It entered in an exclusive distribution deal for the glass with Beam Distributing Inc., but things quickly became rocky between the business partners.
According to a lawsuit Beam filed in the Henrico County, Va. circuit court in March 2015, Leitner-Wise ignore the exclusivity of their contract and began selling the shot glasses on its own.
Beam Distributing claims it has lost at least $750,000 as a result.
It further alleged that Leitner-Wise attempted to sever the companies' ties by refusing to accept Beam's payment on a shipment of MuzzleShots, and then launched a defamatory social media attack against the company.
"480 MuzzleShots were stolen from our engravers by the former distributors," Paul Leitner-Wise wrote on his personal Facebook page on May 21, 2014, according to court documents.
"Anyone receiving one after today is handling stolen property. The Commonwealth's Attorney's [sic] are pursuing the matter and that is that," the post continued.
Leitner-Wise employees agreed to remove the statement and similar ones posted on sites such as Twitter and LinkedIn, as well as negative reviews that have sprouted up on consumer report websites, such as the Better Business Bureau and the Ripoff Report.
Despite approving the consent order, Judge Richard Wallerstein Jr. was careful to point out the action does not connote any admission of fault by Leitner-Wise or his employees.
"The court finds that this permanent injunction has been entered by agreement of the parties, and the fact of the entry of this order shall not be considered an admission of liability by the defendants [or have any preclusive effect] as to any matter that remains before the court," Wallerstein wrote on Jan. 8.
Attorneys for the parties did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.