# Gibson begins to threaten...



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

Here is a link to a video Gibson posted and then pulled:

Gibsons Play Authentic Video they Pulled off of Youtube : guitars

Gibson's Mark Agnesi to guitar builders: "You've been warned" over copyrights - gearnews.com


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2019)

I'm sure that chinese counterfeiters are starting to get nervous.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

I don't envy Gibson, that's a tough row to hoe. 

People buy on price with very little understanding of what they're getting. I wonder how many people trashing Gibbies have only played off-shore fakes and crap. One guy here criticizes Gibson quality and yet he can't even tell when string trees are mounted incorrectly. What value is his opinion when it comes to higher-end guitar quality? None at all, IMO. The internet has made it the wild west - in products, news, pretty well everything.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The older trademark-infringement lawsuit against PRS had little merit; especially coming decades after Les Paul copies started cropping up everywhere without Gibson taking any action. "Chibsons", on the other hand, are another matter, since that constitutes fraud.

I guess the question becomes "Whom does one take action against?". Trying to stop manufacturers on that side of the ocean from making them strikes me as unlikely to achieve anything useful. Not only is the reach of U.S. law too short to have any effect, but there are millions and millions of potential consumers on that side of the ocean that have no problem buying what they know to be a fake. Instead, I think the strategy should be to hit the importers who bring the stuff into North America, and potentially Europe or Australia, or anywhere else that values commercial law. If the fines are steep enough, the importers will shift their imports.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

True. But I think Rolex, Vuitton, et al would tell you it's damn near an impossible fight. No one seems to care anymore about quality, only the appearance of quality.


----------



## TB2019 (Mar 14, 2019)

Well, we shouldn't just throw our hands up and give in to this stuff.

We have to try to do something.

Intellectual property rights matter to me.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

High/Deaf said:


> True. But I think Rolex, Vuitton, et al would tell you it's damn near an impossible fight. No one seems to care anymore about quality, only the appearance of quality.


In the case of Rolex and Vuitton, these are knockoffs of high-priced goods, but _foreign-produced_ goods. I would think that when the knockoffs compromise domestic manufacturing jobs, that the official response would be a little different, and hopefully more aggressive.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

Thanks for the linkage.
That will come in handy in future debates.
I will be searching for a way to get a hard disc copy of that.


----------



## sillyak (Oct 22, 2016)

Targeting boutique luthiers is a fail. They aren't hurting Gibson and they don't put a Gibson logo on the headstock.

Targeting Chibsons is morally right, but probably unwinnable. 

Intellectual property means nothing in China and it's a huge problem in many industries. Trump is trying to tackle to problem and people are on their knees begging him to back off because they are addicted to cheap Chinese crap. Not trying to be political, but if people want to not see their industry hamstrung by countries unwilling to play by the rules, they might need to make some sacrifices.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2019)

The whole world's made in china.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

laristotle said:


> The whole world's made in china.


Increasingly so. But lest we forget, much of that is at the behest of multinationals, and even presumably "domestic" manufacturers, who are eager to take advantage of lower production costs there (and occasionally lower environmental standards).


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

I have an opinion that is too extensive to really warrant any time for a dignified response. 

Troll away I guess.


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

People justify ripping them off because they are expensive. Pretty sad.


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

I didn’t get to see the video, but I am wondering if they are just interested in going after the luthiers building copies and putting the Gibson name on them , or also certain design features with out the brand name , like they did with Ibanez over the headstock design.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Was never a fan of his but using him to deliver this type of a message is wrong. That's not what a brand ambassador does. A brand ambassador builds up the brand through engagement, information and persuasion. The message he delivered should have been a press release from Corporate. What is this, amateur hour at Gibson?


----------



## Fuzzy dagger (Jun 3, 2016)

It’s as much a demand problem as a supply problem. If we in the west didn’t demand cheap plastic crap, then China would have no market. Take China out of the equation and some other poor country would fill the void. Much easier to demonize the “other” than tackle income disparity and consumerism at home. As regards guitars, if someone gases for a LP custom but can’t afford the cake, there’s a knockoff to buy. 
A 50” HD tv built in North America would cost about $15,000.00. I’d guess.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

This may start off sounding like a political post but I promise it's about guitars.

It all starts with standard of living.
When a population continues to have its standard of living diminished it is forced to look for cheaper alternatives.
Cheaper offshore alternatives compound the problem by diminishing jobs at home and also by lowering wages of the jobs that remain.
Over the long haul, those kinds of low prices hurt us all.
That's the political component.
The worst part is ... after a while those low prices rise again back up to the point of being just as inaccessible as the previous domestic items were.
Then we can't even afford the normal crap and have to buy the really crappy crap.
The guitar related consequence is that unless we see a fundamental change in the system, we can absolutely look forward to an increase rather than a decrease of cheap offshore crap.
You know those MIA guitars with rosewood boards that nobody wants to pay more than 1,000 bucks for?
Hang onto them if you can.
In not too many years they may very well increase in value sharply.
This could well be the smartest time in history to buy them if you can afford it.
Problem is, the longer you wait, the more likely it becomes that you cannot afford it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2019)

I remember hearing 20 years ago Monty got a warning from Gibson to stop.


----------



## Ti-Ron (Mar 21, 2007)

Play authentic, yeah right!









I'm just poking at them. Intellectual property is a serious matter. Even more since the internet took over.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2019)

BMW-KTM said:


> Problem is, the longer you wait, the more likely it becomes that you cannot afford it.


Also, the harder it will be to sell in the future because no one can afford it come that time.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

laristotle said:


> Also, the harder it will be to sell in the future because no one can afford it come that time.


I also think the market of buyers will shrink over time. And the buyers that are left - will they cherish the same guitars we do (which we cherish somewhat because of artist association)? Time will tell, but put me on the 'pessimist' side of the ledger.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

You guys could be right.
We may already be there, having guitars with decent value that we cannot sell.
Perhaps that's why resale is now about half of new for MIA and about 70% of new for MIM and other, judging by what I'm seeing on KiJiJi and on social media "For Sale" groups.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Kind of hard to take Gibson seriously.

I'm a pretty forgiving guy by nature but modern era Gibson completely lost my respect when a friend and customer brought me an LPJ to service. Looked awesome in the case but it was horrid in the hands, could not be intonated, the frets were rough and improperly crowned, hardware was loose, pickup surrounds were incorrect, and the truss rod didn't dial in the right amount of relief. Brand spanking new, fresh from L&M, which made me disappointed in L&M for letting it out the door. The guitar was so unplayable that L&M did eventually take it back. I won't service something that can't be set-up while still new and under warranty.

Co-incidentally, at the same time, I had a mid level Epiphone LP on hand, factory stock but with tons of play. No contest, the Epiphone was far superior. How a company gets to the point of such horrendous quality control that an example of their banner name can be worse than their budget model name is just stupid. If they're looking for sources of disrespect of their trademarks, they should go to the john, take a deep breath, and look in the mirror...shit stinks even when it's your own.


----------



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

I have a feeling Gibson will be going after all the boutique builders building F5 Mandolin copies


----------



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

and it begins...

https://guitar.com/news/industry-ne..._medium=&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)




----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2019)




----------



## Ti-Ron (Mar 21, 2007)

I am not sure that whole witch hunt will be positive for them.

Dear Gibby... a letter of friendship. - Wampler Pedals


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)




----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I have no idea whether anyone in their legal team from 2008/2009 is still on staff. A decade or more back, Gibson was going after PRS for trademark infringement, and ultimately lost the case. I exchanged a few notes with George Gruhn and _Vintage Guitar_ editor Ward Meeker about it (Ward liked my argument and had forwarded my note on to Gruhn). There were two flaws in Gibson's reasoning. First, when it comes to trademark infringement, the manufacturer has to demonstrate interest in protecting their trademark early on. You can't just show sudden interest in your "distinctive" presentation after letting copies (with other branding) slide for 40 years, just because you think you're suddenly facing legitimate competition. The second flaw is that, where companies like Martin, Gretsch and Rickenbacker traditionally never pursued the "economy" market (and Rickenbacker continues to aggressively pursue trademark infringement, making any short-lived copies that come out and get shut down, highly desirable and pricey for a cheap copy), such that their products were always strongly associated with quality, Gibson (perhaps under Norlin, or some other owners first) decided to join-'em-rather-than-challenge-'em. Facing a host of lower-priced market entries from Asia, Gibson (and Fender as well) started aggressively pursuing the entry-level market, eroding the perception that "Yeah, it looks like a Gibson, but I mean, Gibson's are _really_ good."

The way I put it to Meeker and Gruhn was that Gibson's legal department was called in to clean up a mess created by their marketing and product-development departments. But too late. Like I noted earlier in this thread, if they're going after manufacturers that falsely portray their products as Gibsons, go with my full support and blessings. If they're going after companies that, like MANY before them, are making instruments that are clearly NOT portrayed as Gibson, and merely satisfy a hunger to have something that sorta looks like one, but for folks without the money, they're wasting their time and the legal system's.


----------



## reckless toboggan (Mar 9, 2019)

In order to send a message to the others, Gibson should really go after Epiphone.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2019)

I want a Bad News T-shirt! Where can I score one? 
or maybe I'll print one off on an iron-on sheet with a pic from google. 
Gotta get going on it before Bully sues them too. lol


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Lame... as @mhammer has pointed out, Dean has been making guitars with that body shape for 40 years... Gibson can't really suddenly claim trademark infringement and be taken seriously. Same for the headstock design- no one is going to mix the two up. What's next, every 3 tuners per side headstock is a Gibson copy? Sad Gibson, really sad... I thought you were found but now I realize you're still just as lost.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Anyone remember what the status of the DiMarzio "only WE can make two creme bobbins" trademark is? I know for a lot of folks, it felt like Trump's attempt to trademark "You're fired". DiMarzio claimed trademark protection for their use of two creme bobbins on a humbucker.

Urgent: Help us cancel the double cream trademark held by DiMarzio


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Anyone remember what the status of the DiMarzio "only WE can make two creme bobbins" trademark is? I know for a lot of folks, it felt like Trump's attempt to trademark "You're fired". DiMarzio claimed trademark protection for their use of two creme bobbins on a humbucker.
> 
> Urgent: Help us cancel the double cream trademark held by DiMarzio


It's still in effect. However, you can get various shades or white and off-white from other companies that don't violate the double cream trademark. I think it's fairly color specific. And of course the trademark is only good for the USA, there are a variety of pickup makers around the world that would be happy to build you a double cream.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

They lost me at "* Director Of Brand Experience."* This level of corporate nonsense/BS spewing crap about lawsuits and "authentic music" in the same breath. I simply cannot bring myself to buy a Gibson again because of all the associated douchebaggery.


----------



## BSTheTech (Sep 30, 2015)




----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Just passing on info. No comment from me again.

Gibson sues Dean Guitars over alleged trademark infringement


----------



## troyhead (May 23, 2014)

Ti-Ron said:


> I am not sure that whole witch hunt will be positive for them.
> 
> Dear Gibby... a letter of friendship. - Wampler Pedals


This is the best response. Seems pretty clear that everyone thinks fake Chinese copies are the one to target, not an “homage” that has had its own thing going on for decades like Dean. If everyone else can see that, why is Gibson so blind?

Also, there was an interesting point about how Slash reinvigorated interest in the LP with a guitar that wasn’t a genuine LP. Kind of reminds me of how Chris Shiflett’s “Tele Deluxe” became a popular signature model when the original was just a partscaster.

I think a lot of companies get all worked up about good copies, when in fact a good copy can help a brand become more predominant. Just think of all the pirated Office and Adobe products from the late ‘90s / early 2000s. On one hand they were losing money from an initial purchase, but on the other hand everyone was learning to use their software which helped them solidify their positions in the market as the go-to standards. Even MP3 copies from the same time probably drove more people to finding new music and eventually purchasing legitimate copies of later albums, making them better off in the long run (seems with the new “legit” method of streaming, artists are worse off now than ever when compared to those “pirating” days when at least some people were buying a whole album). Just to be clear, I’m not advocating stealing... but the overall effect it had in those days was not as bad as it was made out to be, and was probably positive in the long run.


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

I find it strange that Gibson would choose to use revenue for litigation instead of making and promoting guitars this close to filing for Chapter 11 protection, but I guess they figure it will be worth it. Time will tell. 

As an optimist who is always hoping for the best outcome for both sides of every conflict, I hope we see similar results to the Ibanez lawsuit. OOC settlement with Ibanez making design concessions. It pushed Ibanez to define their own path, which is a great thing imo since I own three and they are nothing like my Gibsons. That law suit was a good thing for both parties in the long run.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

*Imitation* is the sincerest *form of flattery*. To *imitate* someone is to pay the person a genuine compliment — often an unintended compliment.

They should be happy


----------



## CathodeRay (Jan 12, 2018)

BMW-KTM said:


> Thanks for the linkage.
> That will come in handy in future debates.
> I will be searching for a way to get a hard disc copy of that.


If you're referring to the video, that would be a copy of an unauthorized copy of a Gibson product. Expect a call.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2019)

BMW-KTM said:


> I will be searching for a way to get a hard disc copy of that.


Download and burn.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)




----------



## reckless toboggan (Mar 9, 2019)

High/Deaf said:


> View attachment 259930


The Burny wipes are just as good and half the price.


----------



## BEACHBUM (Sep 21, 2010)

I've always wondered why Gibson never sued over this headstock. Oh that's right! It's a bit difficult to bully a corporation that has more money than God and would wipe the floor with them.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

The ESP/LTD EC 1000 was always my favorite "LP" copy. Head stock is a bit different, lower horn is different, but it's still visually a LP. Are they next on the hit list?


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

I am pretty sure if Fender started putting birds on there fret boards , PRS would be talking to there lawyers..


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

I'm gonna have to check out those Deans. Maybe they're way better then I thought they were. I mean they must be...


----------



## Ti-Ron (Mar 21, 2007)

I am not sure what to think about that...

Report Counterfeit


***Edit***
Here’s the list of patents and trade marks
Gibson Brands Inc Registered Patents And Trademarks


----------



## TB2019 (Mar 14, 2019)

I'd happily report any Chibson.

Copies that don't put "Gibson" on the peghead or use fake serial numbers are not my concern.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

What's wrong with Gibson protecting their trademarks?


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Dorian2 said:


> What's wrong with Gibson protecting their trademarks?


Trying to do it way too late, I'd imagine.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Budda said:


> Trying to do it way too late, I'd imagine.


Is there a trademark deadline? Serious question...I really haven't got a clue to be honest.

EDIT: OK. I guess it's 3 years. So are they going after the builders from 3 years on? If a design has been copied 25 years ago, but is still being copied last year, I'd think they have a solid basis for this from 2016 on. Am I out on this or what?


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Budda said:


> Trying to do it way too late, I'd imagine.


Funny enough, I heard somewhere that's why Fender doesn't pursue this. Gibson has been trying on and off since the 'lawsuit guitars' era to get a grip on trademark theft. The courts haven't restricted them from their pursuit, at this point in time. Harley did the same thing a couple of decades ago, and I think it's worked well for them.

Fender is probably more copied. Maybe because of the legal issue, but just as likely because they are just simpler to build/copy.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Dorian2 said:


> What's wrong with Gibson protecting their trademarks?


For me there's a big difference between copying a 50 year old design and actually falsifying a name brand and applying a serial number that has already legitimately been assigned to a product.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Milkman said:


> For me there's a big difference between copying a 50 year old design and actually falsifying a name brand and applying a serial number that has already legitimately been assigned to a product.


Ya, I get that. Pretty much goes without saying. I'd like to expand this thread conversation to....Why aren't these other "big money" builders designing their own shit instead of relying on a take on what somebody else has done? It could be argued that it shows a real lack of ingenuity to copy another companies design ideas. One such brand is mentioned up above there. 1st post on this page.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Dorian2 said:


> Ya, I get that. Pretty much goes without saying. I'd like to expand this thread conversation to....Why aren't these other "big money" builders designing their own shit instead of relying on a take on what somebody else has done? It could be argued that it shows a real lack of ingenuity to copy another companies design ideas. One such brand is mentioned up above there. 1st post on this page.


There's only so many ways you can build a guitar that actually works.

If people want a gibson, they buy one. Same with if they want a fender or a schecter or a knaggs. Thats why I find the lawsuit stupid.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Maybe it's time to change the copyright laws then. Seems to be a bit of a beacon for frivolous lawsuits on many fronts.......not just in Gibson's case neither. This shit goes all over the board from Guitars, cars, bikes have been mentioned. Is the nuclear bomb copyrighted as well? 

And where does Trademark fit in to all of this? Or does it?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Dorian2 said:


> Ya, I get that. Pretty much goes without saying. I'd like to expand this thread conversation to....Why aren't these other "big money" builders designing their own shit instead of relying on a take on what somebody else has done? It could be argued that it shows a real lack of ingenuity to copy another companies design ideas. One such brand is mentioned up above there. 1st post on this page.


Supply and demand.

Change the peghead (Epiphone, ESP) and people will stay away to an extent. Change the body shape and it's likely worse.

Guitarists are not known to be forward minded when it comes to these things.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Zzzzz Zzzzz Zzzzz ...............


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Milkman said:


> Supply and demand.
> 
> Change the peghead (Epiphone, ESP) and people will stay away to an extent. Change the body shape and it's likely worse.
> 
> Guitarists are not known to be forward minded when it comes to these things.


Well good on Gibson for realizing this simple fact of human nature when they made their amazing designs....that everyone seems to want to complain about and yet copy as well. I'm playing Devils advocate here to a large extent, but there are a lot of questions not being answered by the other guitar manufacturers in relation to their own development and design concepts. Does the Auto industry function in this same way?


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Robert1950 said:


> Zzzzz Zzzzz Zzzzz ...............


Is that a quote or a comment? I'm genuinely interested in what gives here. You don't have to be.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2019)

Gibson sues Dean Guitars over alleged trademark infringement

_Armadillo Enterprises has responded to the news of the suit in a letter to the company’s dealers, 
strongly refuting the claims made in Gibson’s complaint. 

Armadillo CEO Evan Rubinson describes the suit as “entirely baseless” and says, “we will vigorously 
defend ourselves and seek to cancel Gibson’s alleged trademark registrations” while also claiming that, 
“We respect and value the intellectual property rights of others. But… some things are just too common
and basic for one company to claim as their own property.”_


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2019)

Dorian2 said:


> Does the Auto industry function in this same way?


It did in the early days.
1895 Selden patent


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

Dorian2 said:


> What's wrong with Gibson protecting their trademarks?


Sometimes people don't like it when they feel a big company is bullying smaller companies. Especially if they have a vested interest, like brand loyalty to another company or a dislike for the big company. Otherwise why take it personally? Kind of like Microsoft back in the day. Some people also feel there is a moral component to a business law suits. To me it is just a dispute resolution mechanism. 

I have no dog in the fight, so I don't feel the need to defend/bash Gibson or any company named in their suit. I only care about the guitars, the rest of it is just a distraction. Not to mention I am not a patent lawyer or judge and have no access to precedents/case law that may have legal significance in the case(s).


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

Dorian2 said:


> If a design has been copied 25 years ago, but is still being copied last year, I'd think they have a solid basis for this from 2016 on. Am I out on this or what?


Precedent is a huge factor. It's a legitimate arguement that if they were concerned, they should have been as aggressive in pursuing the issue in the distant past as they are now. The fact that they did not (at least not always), gives the impression that they were ok with it.


----------



## troyhead (May 23, 2014)

Dorian2 said:


> Is there a trademark deadline? Serious question...I really haven't got a clue to be honest.
> 
> EDIT: OK. I guess it's 3 years. So are they going after the builders from 3 years on? If a design has been copied 25 years ago, but is still being copied last year, I'd think they have a solid basis for this from 2016 on. Am I out on this or what?





Dorian2 said:


> Maybe it's time to change the copyright laws then.


One thing that is important to understand here is the difference between copyright, patents, and trademarks. Copyright is usually given to new artistic works. You don't have to apply for it, it is bestowed upon the work when it is created (but you may need to do some work to prove when your work was created if there is some dispute). A patent is applied and granted for some kind of novel device or process (can be based on something existing, but something significant must be new). Both of these are to protect innovators for a period of time, but theoretically they should all eventually expire to allow for further innovation without threat of being sued.

A trademark is a word, graphic, or design element that uniquely identifies a company in an industry. One key difference is that a company needs to prove that it is vigorously defending its trademarks. If a company fails to do this, they run the risk of their marks becoming generic. For example, many people know what a Band-aid is, but a Band-aid isn't a thing, it is a brand. The company needs to spend a lot of money to advertise their products as "bandages" and pursue legal action against those who advertise other bandages as "Band aids". It is to the point where their jingle is now, "I'm stuck on Band-aid *brand*..." A brand that failed to do this is Thermos, and because they did not vigorously defend that trademark, other companies can now sell their insulated beverage holders as a thermos. If defended, a trademark will not expire.

In the case of the guitars, it seems that Gibson has successfully defended their trademark for things like the headstock shape or the words "Les Paul", but not the body style. The "Gibson" body shapes have been around for decades and now suddenly they are filing lawsuits. However, they were probably not considered "trademarks" when they were created because they were not that unique. Gibson wasn't the first to come up with the double-cutaway, for example, but they copied that idea from elsewhere. Dean's response that, "some things are just too common and basic for one company to claim as their own property," seems to support that.



Dorian2 said:


> I'd like to expand this thread conversation to....Why aren't these other "big money" builders designing their own shit instead of relying on a take on what somebody else has done? It could be argued that it shows a real lack of ingenuity to copy another companies design ideas.


Everything is based on what came before. No one owns the idea of a guitar. Just like you can't copyright D-C-G, you can't trademark some very basic features of a guitar. What if someone tried to trademark a scale length, for example? Or Fender tried to trademark contours on a solid body guitar? You can trademark some items that help consumers identify a product as coming from your company, but you can't prevent others from making the product altogether.


----------



## TimH (Feb 4, 2006)

troyhead said:


> In the case of the guitars, it seems that Gibson has successfully defended their trademark for things like the headstock shape or the words "Les Paul", but not the body style. The "Gibson" body shapes have been around for decades and now suddenly they are filing lawsuits. However, they were probably not considered "trademarks" when they were created because they were not that unique. Gibson wasn't the first to come up with the double-cutaway, for example, but they copied that idea from elsewhere. Dean's response that, "some things are just too common and basic for one company to claim as their own property," seems to support that.


In the case of the Les Paul I think one can make that argument. However, in the case of the V and Explorer I can see that Gibson has a point. Who was using those shapes for instruments before them? When someone sees those body shapes now, do they not immediately think of those instruments and the Gibson brand? I think so...


----------



## troyhead (May 23, 2014)

Looking at Gibson's list of trademarks, there are a few funny things I've noticed.

The *words* "Les Paul" are trademarked, but not a graphical representation of those words. I wonder if that's why several brands can get away with "Love Rock" or other words that look very much like the Les Paul signature but are not.
"Humbucker" is listed as one of their word marks. Maybe they plan to sue everyone who has made an electric guitar or pickup ever.
Apparently this bridge is a Gibson trademark. Would anyone look at this bridge and think "That's a Gibson"








Anyone else notice anything weird in the list?


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Should Gibson get a cut of the sales from the larger manufacturers and small builders that use the guitar shapes associated with and copyrighted by Gibson? 

And yes. I AM being a shit disturber.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I think what they do have covered under the copyright and patent laws are only applicable within the US.
That's why you could/can buy LP type guitars from Japan with the "open book" and similar fonts on the headstock.
All they could do in Japan was join in and build their own there, Orville, OBG and the Epiphones.

Also why they're churning out the Chibson as there is no recourse in that country.
Imo, this is who they should be going after. Get Ignesi to tour the US ports with an axe.


----------



## troyhead (May 23, 2014)

TimH said:


> However, in the case of the V and Explorer I can see that Gibson has a point. Who was using those shapes for instruments before them? When someone sees those body shapes now, do they not immediately think of those instruments and the Gibson brand?


Not really. When I look at this, I don't think it is a representation of a Gibson guitar at all, yet it is made in a V-shape.









My point is that the shape of the guitar body is almost too much of a fundamental thing to say it is a unique design element that can be trademarked. Should all Dreadnought acoustic guitar shapes be limited to Martin? Should every electric guitar with a 25" scale length only be allowed to be made by PRS?

And besides that point, Gibson did not do anything to prevent other companies from making alphabet-shaped guitars for decades, so even if they did have a legal argument they waited to long to do anything about it. The V guitar is like a Thermos... anyone can make one now, in my opinion.



Dorian2 said:


> Should Gibson get a cut of the sales from the larger manufacturers and small builders that use the guitar shapes associated with and copyrighted by Gibson?


Only if they use a legitimate trademark. Fender does this all the time, selling licensed necks with their trademarked headstock shape. Note, the heal shape, neck shape, number of frets, etc. doesn't need to be licensed because they are too basic. Even a bigger "boutique" builder like Nash Guitars must use licensed necks and pay Fender (directly or indirectly) a small amount for every guitar they make, because they are pretty well known and continue to sell guitars with Fender's shape.

If Gibson could collect money from those who were inspired by their designs, then Gibson should probably pay Martin for every Dreadnought they sell, or Bigsby for every solidbody guitar they make.


----------



## Misterock (May 30, 2009)

And what's now ? should I trow away all my Asian custom made Gibson guitars ? They were made with the best wood, using the same machines sent from here and great labor. Poor guy from the video clip, he doesn't know that the student became better than his teacher. He still thinks that the best product is done in States.
Lol
Big news for you : with a few smart workers you can have an excellent product.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Dorian2 said:


> Is that a quote or a comment? I'm genuinely interested in what gives here. You don't have to be.


Another way of saying I couldn't care less or, I don't gives a rat's ass, about all this corporate hijinks, etc


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

troyhead said:


> Looking at Gibson's list of trademarks, there are a few funny things I've noticed.
> 
> The *words* "Les Paul" are trademarked, but not a graphical representation of those words. I wonder if that's why several brands can get away with "Love Rock" or other words that look very much like the Les Paul signature but are not.


You can't copyright a typeface.


----------



## troyhead (May 23, 2014)

Rozz said:


> You can't copyright a typeface.


That is true (in many countries), but it looks like trademarks might be muddier waters. Just look at the logo for Oracle, which is basically a typeface but is also a registered trademark. If you tried to create a logo using the same font for a tech company called "Orate" you'd probably end up in some legal trouble.

My guess is that back in the '50s and '60s, organizations weren't quite as crazy about protecting every little detail that _*might*_ be associated with their brand. The "Les Paul Model" type with the large scripted name and small uppercase "MODEL" are almost as recognizable as the Gibson logo itself, maybe even more so because it appears on way more guitars than the Gibson logo. 

Personally, I love the "Super Grade" and "Love Rock" and all those logos.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

It seemed like the business model used to be buy your competition, but now it's sue your competition.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Here's a pretty famous Gibson copy.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

I know the one dude is Brent ‘the Hitman’ Hart, who’s the other dude?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Gibson is fighting a losing battle and will never win. While a copy that says Gibson on it is wrong, there are many legit copies with trade names that are legit and have dug deeply into Gibson's market share.


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

troyhead said:


> That is true (in many countries), but it looks like trademarks might be muddier waters. Just look at the logo for Oracle, which is basically a typeface but is also a registered trademark. * If you tried to create a logo using the same font for a tech company called "Orate" you'd probably end up in some legal trouble*.


Fonts aren't the same as typeface, they can be copyrighted. Damn computers change everything. ;-) But you are right.


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

vadsy said:


> I know the one dude is Brent ‘the Hitman’ Hart, who’s the other dude?


Kevin Spacey.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Rozz said:


> Kevin Spacey.


I loved him on the Cosby Show


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

vadsy said:


> I loved him on the Cosby Show


Turns out they had a lot in common.


----------



## Ti-Ron (Mar 21, 2007)

EU say not to Gibson's trademark over the V shape.

https://guitar.com/news/gibson-loses-flying-v-trademark-case-in-eu-court/


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2019)

_The court also dismissed the notion that the presence of other V-shaped guitars in the market would 
confuse or mislead customers into thinking they were buying a Gibson, stating, “The presence on the 
market of a significant number of shapes encountered by consumers makes it unlikely that they will 
regard a particular shape as belonging to a specific manufacturer rather than being just one of the 
variety of shapes characterising the market.”_


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

LOL

I'm starting to see some post on TGP about the good ol' days at Gibson, when Henry was in charge.

I'm gonna file this under 'be careful what you wish for'. ^)@#


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)




----------



## Eyeban Ezz (Jan 19, 2018)

I'm gonna pull out my 1975 pre serial Rocket Roll today and fistfuck the air.

PS: Have you seen this interesting video?

: /






: D


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Lots of discussion about this stuff from people who know:

Gibson threatening the mandolin and guitar luthier community


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Gibson is just turning off more potential buyers by trying to strong arm the competition.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> Gibson is just turning off more potential buyers by trying to strong arm the competition.


Gibson is trending like crazy right now, I bet it turns out ok for them.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Also this, from the talkbass forum:

Gibson Sues Dean and Luna over Infringement


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

vadsy said:


> Gibson is trending like crazy right now, I bet it turns out ok for them.





> The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. - Oscar Wilde


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2019)

Is Schecter on their radar?


----------



## GuitarT (Nov 23, 2010)

laristotle said:


> Is Schecter on their radar?
> 
> View attachment 261092


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

Eyeban Ezz said:


> I'm gonna pull out my 1975 pre serial Rocket Roll today and fistfuck the air.
> 
> PS: Have you seen this interesting video?
> 
> ...


who is that fucking guy? he looks & sounds like a total tool

no wonder Gibson 3.0 hired him as a mouthpiece


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Gibson released a statement yesterday.

Gibson officially responds - From Confrontation To Collaboration - gearnews.com


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

laristotle said:


> Is Schecter on their radar?
> 
> View attachment 261092


Hey that was my idea, I even sketched it out in a note book somewhere.... I should sue schecter! 

jk..


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

Dorian2 said:


> Gibson released a statement yesterday.
> 
> Gibson officially responds - From Confrontation To Collaboration - gearnews.com


From that response it looks like they feel the legacy of lax attention to brand/design protection has fallen into their lap to clean up.The wording also feels like they are looking for something other than a court settlement. Licensing fees?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Reading between the lines, I hear that they are trying to appease any who have taken issue with what appears to be a strong handed approach. Losing the court case over the flying V has likely also made them realize they are not on solid ground when it comes to winning any other cases in regard to patents. 

If they are shutting down sites made to look like Gibson or a certified Gibson dealer, I am all for it. That kind of thing is clearly fraud.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Dorian2 said:


> Gibson released a statement yesterday.
> 
> Gibson officially responds - From Confrontation To Collaboration - gearnews.com


not much in that


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

I can see them suing a brand new company, but Dean has been copying them over 15 years give or take. There are limits as to how long you can wait to sue for a copyright infringement. They have a much better case against Luna than they do against Dean. I think they are more pissed off at Dean because, quality aside, their guitars are dirt cheap compared to Gibson. I think that bothers them more than the copyrights.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

vadsy said:


> not much in that


Nope. But considering some of the comments online, a few more people should probably read it.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

knight_yyz said:


> I can see them suing a brand new company, but Dean has been copying them over 15 years give or take. There are limits as to how long you can wait to sue for a copyright infringement. They have a much better case against Luna than they do against Dean. I think they are more pissed off at Dean because, quality aside, their guitars are dirt cheap compared to Gibson. I think that bothers them more than the copyrights.


I can twell you’ve been following this thread from the beginning very carefully and you have well thought out opinions


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Dean and Gibson aren't the only players here.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

knight_yyz said:


> I can see them suing a brand new company, but Dean has been copying them over 15 years give or take. There are limits as to how long you can wait to sue for a copyright infringement.


More like 40 years, and its trademark infringement not copyright.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)




----------



## Kenmac (Jan 24, 2007)

Dorian2 said:


>


I watched this video last night. At first I thought it was going to be dry, technical and boring but it was actually quite interesting and he explained things in a very layman friendly way.


----------



## georgemg (Jul 17, 2011)

Dorian2 said:


> Gibson released a statement yesterday.
> 
> Gibson officially responds - From Confrontation To Collaboration - gearnews.com





Rozz said:


> The wording also feels like they are looking for something other than a court settlement. Licensing fees?


It looks like that's what they are working towards. Three companies are mentioned in the following article as having have signed up. Not sure if any other arrangements are in the works.

Summer NAMM 2019: Gibson partners with Jimmy Wallace Guitars, Banker Custom Guitars and Echopark Guitars | MusicRadar


----------



## Cardamonfrost (Dec 12, 2018)

knight_yyz said:


> I can see them suing a brand new company, but Dean has been copying them over 15 years give or take. There are limits as to how long you can wait to sue for a copyright infringement. .


I didn't read all of this, but have a lot of experience with IP.

My understanding is that there are no limits on the timeline, however the court applied damages could be reduced. Ultimately Gibson has to show they were damaged and then the number will be arbitrated for a total settlement. Been there myself with a suit against CTire. Another common outcome is that there could be a licence fee agreement for all future Deans of that design (i.e. 16 cents per guitar to pay out the market confusion).

That is if Gibson actually wants any money...they could also just get Dean to cease production until they resolve the form factor confusion.

No such thing as bad publicity they say. Everyone wins, especially the lawyers.

C


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

comparing Statute of limitations in Canada and USA is like comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

FYI: 

A Comparison of the Canadian and U.S. Patent Systems | Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh


----------

