At a time of rapid technological development and the ever-growing role of unmanned systems in military operations, issues of copyright, innovative uniqueness, and the protection of intellectual solutions are becoming no less important than the technical characteristics of the devices themselves. Disputes between developers arise not only over contracts or supplies, but also over who has the right to use certain technical solutions, forms, or software algorithms. This shows that today’s defense technology market is not only a sphere of military needs, but also a competitive environment where each product has its own unique value that must be protected at both the national and international levels.
Recently, the Ukrainian company Wild Hornets, which specializes in the development and production of combat unmanned aerial vehicles, made a sensational statement about the new Bullet interceptor drone manufactured by General Cherevnya.
What happened?
Wild Hornets reported on this situation on their social media: “Wild Hornets does not provide service support for copies of STING drones distributed on the front lines by the manufacturer General Cherry. We received a complete copy of our STING drone, which is produced by General Cherry under the name Bullet. Confirmation that this manufacturer has copied our solution 100% is also posted on its social media pages,” the company said.
Wild Hornets noted that General Cherry did not request permission to copy their design, and no other manufacturer had received such permission. The company emphasized that it would not repair or service drones that copied their designs. Blogger, activist, and volunteer Serhiy Sternenko responded to the statement, noting that he had received many complaints from the military about General Cherry drones.
“Unfortunately, billions of hryvnias from the state budget were spent on General Cherry. When it comes to FPV against ground targets, it’s money down the drain. It’s a loss for the country. It’s unfulfilled combat missions. And it’s an extra burden on us, because we then have to supply high-quality FPVs instead of junk that’s been assembled with significant flaws,” Sternenko said. He added that he personally passed on feedback from drone operators to representatives of General Cherevnya, but no changes were made to the products.
“Now they are also making counterfeit versions of other drones. Incidentally, it is these counterfeits that have been purchased more than once by certain local authorities,” wrote Serhiy Sternenko.
What General Cherry says
“There should be more drones and more anti-drone systems. We want to work and exist in an effective ecosystem of security and defense agencies, where every decision is aimed at protecting Ukraine,” the manufacturer said in a statement.
The company noted that it cooperates with more than 100 military units, and feedback from the Defense Forces is key to General Cherry’s products.
“We have a strong R&D team that is constantly developing new solutions for technological warfare. We value horizontal relationships in the market and strive to build an open ecosystem with other manufacturers. Therefore, we are ready to share our solutions and technologies with other manufacturers. Building a strong, modern, and effective defense industry is our main idea,” the company said.
General Cherry noted that it provides “full support for drones from all manufacturers” at its own expense, which the military contacts the service team about. The statement notes that each of the company’s drones is an original codified product of the General Cherry team.
This situation is an example of a conflict arising at the intersection of technology, intellectual property protection, and real combat needs. In a context where unmanned systems play a key role in countering air threats, such as Russia’s Shahed, issues of copyright and the uniqueness of technical solutions become not only a matter of ethics, but also a matter of national defense capability. Disputes of this kind force manufacturers not only to improve their products but also to pay attention to the legal protection of intellectual developments, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other means of legal protection.
In conclusion, it can be noted that despite the justified technical differences between various unmanned systems, competition in the defense technology market raises questions about their originality and legal status. The conflict between Wild Hornets and General Cherevnya shows that today, intellectual property protection is an integral part of the activities of innovative companies, and ignoring it can lead to reputational losses, legal disputes, or internal disagreements among developers. If you are involved in the creation of technological products or intellectual developments, do not leave legal protection to a later stage. Contact us: we will provide legal support, advice on intellectual property rights, patent and copyright protection, and help you protect your technologies from unfair copying or misuse.
