Gibson v Dean trial to start

[Mincer]

Hey - here is an idea Gibson....just spitballing here, but maybe toss this around the board room:

Make REALLY REALLY good guitars, classics and moderns, at really competitive prices. Maybe channel all that Lawyer money into Quality, modern production, and reducing costs for customers while maintaining margins. Bah - what do I know.....

I would agree with this. But they clearly know there is a market for ultra high end instruments for by people who will rarely play them. That is baked into their business model. Let's face it, most of their customers are guitar fans, not musicians. I love my Gibson, but it is an 40-year-old, not-widely-respected model. I am priced out of their instruments these days, even though I am technically a Gibson artist.

[Aceman]

Gibson doesn't care. They just want to win, and scare other companies.

Hey - here is an idea Gibson....just spitballing here, but maybe toss this around the board room:

Make REALLY REALLY good guitars, classics and moderns, at really competitive prices. Maybe channel all that Lawyer money into Quality, modern production, and reducing costs for customers while maintaining margins. Bah - what do I know.....

[Mincer]

Back on topic, please.

[GuitarStv]

BTW the Mickey Mouse copyright expires in about 2 years time.

Like it expired in 1998? Disney has had the laws changed to protect the mouse once, I'd be surprised if they don't do it again. Copyright has constantly been extended by US law, well beyond any reasonable limits.

[Synapsys]

Fixed

Being a lawyer here in Portugal, I do believe Ace aced it here.

[Mincer]

Man - what a dooshbag business move.

At the end of the day, no one is confused about the difference between a Gibson and anything that looks like a Gibson. This isn't going to help Gibson sell guitars, it isn't going to stop people making Les Pauls, and whatever else.

Just a big waste of time and money on everyone's part.

Gibson doesn't care. They just want to win, and scare other companies.

[Securb]

But the thing is, if you read the letter, it says they filed suit against the importer and distributor, not against the maker Ibanez.

Ibanez bought out the distributor in the early 70's and that became Ibanez USA. Lots of names with different divisions but all under the same parent company.

[Aceman]

I would bet Gibson wastes more money on lawyers, though, and that might be all you need.

Fixed

[beaubrummels]

Looks like they have been filing for U.S. trademark on the body shapes. (Can't stop companies in foreign countries making them, however.) Don't know if they've been providing proper notification to the public, but they have been filing. Maybe they have a case? (ba-dump-bump)

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:z0lkmk.8.470

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:z0lkmk.8.469

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:z0lkmk.8.468

[ErikH]

Provided it is maintained and used.

In this case it certainly has.

[ICTGoober]

I would bet Gibson has much better lawyers, though, and that might be all you need.

Better, or more of them? If they were really good they wouldn't have lost any cases.

[ICTGoober]

A trademark has no expiration.

Provided it is maintained and used.

[ErikH]

Gibson is not claiming copyright, but trademark. A trademark has no expiration.

[ThreeChordWonder]

I'm no attorney, but AFAIK the design copyrights for something like a guitar shape, held by a company not an individual, last 120 years or 95 years after the death of the author, whichever is shorter.

That Gibson (or Fender, or Gretsch, or any other manufacturer) is selective in who it pursues is irrelevant. It comes down to money. If you or I home build an LP knockoff, first off all its unlikely to be a precise enough copy anyway, but even if it is, so long as we don't stick a Gibson logo on it, or try to sell it as the genuine article, it's unlikely Gibson, for example, will come after us. It's simply not worth the money.


BTW the Mickey Mouse copyright expires in about 2 years time.

[beaubrummels]

I am not sure but I know after Ibanez they went after Fernadez, PRS, Kiesel, and a few others. I don't know what happened before Ibanez. I would guess in the early days, the late 1800's Orville would probably take his walking stick to a scoundrel who dared infringe on his business. "No need for barristers my good man I shall thrash thee where thee stands"

But the thing is, if you read the letter, it says they filed suit against the importer and distributor, not against the maker Ibanez. So you could buy an Ibanez Les Paul in Japan and carry it to the U.S. with you, just not in bulk and sell them; assuming the suit was indeed filed and they prevailed? I'm going to search for the actual court case and decision, if I can find it. (You'd think Gibson would have it on their own site, in an easy to find section.)

Edit: so what I can find is that Norlin sued Elgar in Philadelphia Federal District Court and the issue was the open-book headstock design, nothing else. "Ibanez made an out-of-court settlement with Norlin and agreed to stop copying the Gibson headstock and using names similar to Gibson models on their instruments." So unless there are other cases, it doesn't appear Gibson attempted to protect the silhouette shape of their guitars for the first 25-50 years of them being sold.

https://acousticmusic.org/research/guitar-information/large-shop-guitar-builders/ibanez-lawsuit-elger-guitars/