Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Gibson v Dean trial to start
Collapse
X
-
Gibson won't win this if Agnesi's statement is their position. It's not a counterfeit if it's just infringing a trademark shape. It would only be counterfeit if every aspect and detail was designed to fool the average consumer, including putting the Gibson name on it. For trademark, the remedy might be other companies have to change their shapes a bit. But waiting until 2019 to protect a trademark on something in the market for over 50+ years is too late to file for protection. And the court is not where you file for trademark protection. They let those shapes become public domain by not acting from the beginning.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by beaubrummels View PostBut waiting until 2019 to protect a trademark on something in the market for over 50+ years is too late to file for protection. And the court is not where you file for trademark protection. They let those shapes become public domain by not acting from the beginning.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Securb View Post
Nope, they have been defending the shapes for years in court. They don't win a lot but they still defend and list the shapes as a trademark. I am not saying they are right or wrong, I am saying they have the legal right and have been defending the trademark all along.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
They sued Ibanez and won and countless others over the years.
Also, the letter you posted went out to all Gibson dealers - not makers of Gibson copies.Last edited by ICTGoober; 05-11-2022, 01:41 PM.aka Chris Pile, formerly of Six String Fever
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by beaubrummels View Post
Was 1977 the first case? Isn't that still 25 years into having their trademark unprotected?
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by ICTGoober View Post
INCORRECT! Gibson requested they stop making copies, OR they would file a lawsuit against them. You might say "so what"? In a court of law - these things matter. There was NO lawsuit against Ibanez. It would have been useless anyway because Ibanez had already made the decision to continue with their own original designs, and stop making copies.
Also, the letter you posted went out to all Gibson dealers - not makers of Gibson copies.
https://www.premierguitar.com/pro-ad...wsuit-les-paul
Last edited by Securb; 05-11-2022, 02:07 PM.
Comment
-
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.Originally posted by Bad City
He's got the crowd on his side and the blue jean lights in his eyes...
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by idsnowdog View PostMaybe Gibson shouldn't have created a lucrative market for Dean to sell lower priced copies by inflating their own profit margins?
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by ICTGoober View PostA THREAT to file suit is NOT a suit. Experts with more legal knowledge than you or I came to the same conclusion. There was NO lawsuit.On June 28th, 1977, Norlin, the parent company of Gibson, filed a lawsuit against Elger (Ibanez) in Philadelphia Federal District Court . The case was “Gibson Vs. Elger Co.” with Gibson claiming trademark infringement based on the duplicate ‘open book’ headstock design of the Ibanez copies.Last edited by Securb; 05-11-2022, 02:57 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment