banner

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gibson v Dean trial to start

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I would bet Gibson has much better lawyers, though, and that might be all you need.
    Dave, Ambassador/Writer/Artist for Seymour Duncan

    Comment


    • #17
      Securb, I need references on your 2nd quote please.

      aka Chris Pile, formerly of Six String Fever

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Mincer View Post
        I would bet Gibson has much better lawyers, though, and that might be all you need.
        Maybe, maybe not. Most of their suits have been thrown out of court or dismissed. The one I claimed "they won" Ibanez was settled out of court with Ibanez discontinuing the open book headstock. I would call that a win though the case did not go to judgment.


        | Gear Reviews | Beer | Babes | The Internet's Only Unedited & Uncensored Musician's Forum | Sports |

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Securb View Post

          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/g...elger-guitars/
          beaubrummels
          Mojo's Minions
          Last edited by beaubrummels; 05-11-2022, 03:48 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              Gibson is not claiming copyright, but trademark. A trademark has no expiration.

              Comment


              • #22
                A trademark has no expiration.
                Provided it is maintained and used.

                aka Chris Pile, formerly of Six String Fever

                Comment


                • #23
                  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.

                  aka Chris Pile, formerly of Six String Fever

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ICTGoober View Post

                    Provided it is maintained and used.
                    In this case it certainly has.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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/showf...1:z0lkmk.8.470
                      https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showf...1:z0lkmk.8.469
                      https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showf...1:z0lkmk.8.468

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mincer View Post
                        I would bet Gibson wastes more money on lawyers, though, and that might be all you need.
                        Fixed
                        Originally posted by Bad City
                        He's got the crowd on his side and the blue jean lights in his eyes...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by beaubrummels View Post

                          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.


                          | Gear Reviews | Beer | Babes | The Internet's Only Unedited & Uncensored Musician's Forum | Sports |

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Aceman View Post
                            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.
                            Dave, Ambassador/Writer/Artist for Seymour Duncan

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Aceman View Post

                              Fixed
                              Being a lawyer here in Portugal, I do believe Ace aced it here.
                              Guitars:Gibson LP Trad ('57 Classics);PRS SE CU 24 Flametop (TB5/PGn);Ibanez SEW761FM (TB-16/STK-S7 m&n);Charvel DK24 (TB10/SSL-6/A2Pn), DK22 (HRb/SSL-6 m&n) & Style2 24 2PT (Fluence OCC);ESP LTD MH-1000HS (TB-15/Lil59n), & ST213A (HRb/STK-S4 m&n); Effects:L6 Helix, Digitech Drop & FreqOut, ME EP-1L6,Shure GLXD16;

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ThreeChordWonder View Post
                                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.
                                Join me in the fight against muscular atrophy!

                                Originally posted by Douglas Adams
                                This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X