Evan Skopp
SDUGF Founder
Click here. A group of of guitar companies are challenging the registration.
Non-bashing comments, anyone?
Non-bashing comments, anyone?
Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
- Thread starter Evan Skopp
- Start date
- Status
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
I guess it could have been any of the companies who have done that. We will probably see more companies do this. I see more and more companies coming out with similar shapes, circuits, Etc....I think innovation isn't as popular as it used to be.
I guess it could have been any of the companies who have done that. We will probably see more companies do this. I see more and more companies coming out with similar shapes, circuits, Etc....I think innovation isn't as popular as it used to be.
Oinkus
New member
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
No bashing WTF ? For as much as they charge for their guitars they probably just want that comfort of owning the patent and then charging the crap out of everyone to use it. Money makes the world spin , they have the lawyers to survive the fight.It's business and the idea is to market your brand successfully , having a patent adds additional revenue.
No bashing WTF ? For as much as they charge for their guitars they probably just want that comfort of owning the patent and then charging the crap out of everyone to use it. Money makes the world spin , they have the lawyers to survive the fight.It's business and the idea is to market your brand successfully , having a patent adds additional revenue.
uOpt
Something Cool
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
I don't think this will fly. There was a big lawsuit between Fender and some other manufacturers such as Suhr where it was clarified that you can protect the head shape under a trademark but not the body shape.
Gibson has since then tried to undermine this decision with a bunch of legalese, for example by saying that the above does not apply when the body is the whole product, such as when Warmoth wants to sell LP bodies. That worked on Warmoth, but because Warmoth didn't fight it. I doubt you can push this through once the courts get involved.
I don't think this will fly. There was a big lawsuit between Fender and some other manufacturers such as Suhr where it was clarified that you can protect the head shape under a trademark but not the body shape.
Gibson has since then tried to undermine this decision with a bunch of legalese, for example by saying that the above does not apply when the body is the whole product, such as when Warmoth wants to sell LP bodies. That worked on Warmoth, but because Warmoth didn't fight it. I doubt you can push this through once the courts get involved.
Chickenwings
Alnico 6/8
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
wow! it only took them 50+ years!
wow! it only took them 50+ years!
SirJackdeFuzz
New member
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
I wonder what would happen in the first 3 months, IF Gibson won the shape-trademark request
I wonder what would happen in the first 3 months, IF Gibson won the shape-trademark request
IM4Tone
New member
Evan Skopp
SDUGF Founder
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
Yeah, I know. But bashing isn't allowed here. Sorry.
Interesting to me is that when Fender tried to register their shapes, they were opposed by attorney Ron Bienstock who represented all the guitar companies Fender was trying to prevent making those shapes. If you read the story, you'll see that all the companies opposing Gibson are again represented by Bienstock & Michael, Ron Bienstock's firm: except Fender and Gretsch (who have inside counsel).
The irony is that Ron Bienstock represented WD Music in their registration of the lipstick tube pickup which isn't that different from what Gibson is doing: trying to register a mark that has been in the public domain since the '50s.
Yeah, I know. But bashing isn't allowed here. Sorry.
Interesting to me is that when Fender tried to register their shapes, they were opposed by attorney Ron Bienstock who represented all the guitar companies Fender was trying to prevent making those shapes. If you read the story, you'll see that all the companies opposing Gibson are again represented by Bienstock & Michael, Ron Bienstock's firm: except Fender and Gretsch (who have inside counsel).
The irony is that Ron Bienstock represented WD Music in their registration of the lipstick tube pickup which isn't that different from what Gibson is doing: trying to register a mark that has been in the public domain since the '50s.
Archer250
Well-known member
Christopher Caruana
New member
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
What about when gibson went after PRS for his single cut shaped guitar. Gibson won that didn't they?
What about when gibson went after PRS for his single cut shaped guitar. Gibson won that didn't they?
SirJackdeFuzz
New member
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
I think they won with the Ibanez 'law suit' LP too, not so ?
I think they won with the Ibanez 'law suit' LP too, not so ?
PFDarkside
of the Forum
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
Kind of surprised it isn't already. The Headstock shape is trademarked, right? The 335 and LP look goofy when they are slightly wrong. See Heritage.
Kind of surprised it isn't already. The Headstock shape is trademarked, right? The 335 and LP look goofy when they are slightly wrong. See Heritage.
Edgecrusher
Well-known member
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
No actually they didnt. Well ok to be clear they were granted and injunction against PRS but this was eventually overturned. In the end Gibsons own lawyers did them no favors they even said that at the point of sale "only an idiot" would confuse the PRS for a Gibson (Gibsons lawyers were arguing that in a smokey bar room someone might mistake them)
No actually they didnt. Well ok to be clear they were granted and injunction against PRS but this was eventually overturned. In the end Gibsons own lawyers did them no favors they even said that at the point of sale "only an idiot" would confuse the PRS for a Gibson (Gibsons lawyers were arguing that in a smokey bar room someone might mistake them)
Edgecrusher
Well-known member
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
there are no patents involved in this. This is about trademarks which can be much more insidious than patents can. Its an important distinction.
there are no patents involved in this. This is about trademarks which can be much more insidious than patents can. Its an important distinction.
PFDarkside
of the Forum
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
A patent says a company has exclusive rights to use a technology or innovation for a specific time period, free from copies from competitors. When it expires, others can use the technology. Think of Lipitor and the generic versions now.
A Trademark says that the item in question is an intrinsic part of the Brand's identity. It will never expire. Think the white Coca Cola script on the red background. Or the silhouette of the Strat headstock w/the Fender signature. Those do not expire, as they are part of the brand "DNA".
The LD color combo is a trademark...
Yes, very distinct difference.
A patent says a company has exclusive rights to use a technology or innovation for a specific time period, free from copies from competitors. When it expires, others can use the technology. Think of Lipitor and the generic versions now.
A Trademark says that the item in question is an intrinsic part of the Brand's identity. It will never expire. Think the white Coca Cola script on the red background. Or the silhouette of the Strat headstock w/the Fender signature. Those do not expire, as they are part of the brand "DNA".
The LD color combo is a trademark...
uOpt
Something Cool
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
Patents do at least expire. Trademarks do not, unless they all into not being used or not being defended.
The one good thing Gibson did is that at least in the PRS case they won an actual lawsuit in 2001. Sure, they were overturned later (2005), reverting to what everything was before except a bunch of lawyers a whole lot richer from the gear money everybody on this forum here forks out for guitars. But at least they did file a lawsuit and completed in, instead of just trying to overpower smaller companies pre-lawsuit like they did with Warmoth.
Patents do at least expire. Trademarks do not, unless they all into not being used or not being defended.
The one good thing Gibson did is that at least in the PRS case they won an actual lawsuit in 2001. Sure, they were overturned later (2005), reverting to what everything was before except a bunch of lawyers a whole lot richer from the gear money everybody on this forum here forks out for guitars. But at least they did file a lawsuit and completed in, instead of just trying to overpower smaller companies pre-lawsuit like they did with Warmoth.
FuseG4
Our Neighbor Totoro
Re: Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape
I really wish Gibson would just drop all the min e tune and weight relief and signature models and lawsuits and just put all those resources towards quality control and getting a few market research panels of REAL guitarists to occasionally figure out what customers really want and what they complain about.
If they just made good guitars at modest prices wouldn't the guitars basically sell themselves? Why do they have to try everything BUT that?
If someone copies a 335 and I were Gibson, who cares, don't I have the resources to make mine really good and affordable, while carrying the original brand name? Do they ask WHY people are making copies? Some are because people are trying to ride the look of a popular model. But some are making them because they feel they have improved upon the current state of the product they are copying. Why can't Gibson just be dedicated to making KILLER 335s and let them sell themselves? This is the internet age. A good review gets around.
I really wish Gibson would just drop all the min e tune and weight relief and signature models and lawsuits and just put all those resources towards quality control and getting a few market research panels of REAL guitarists to occasionally figure out what customers really want and what they complain about.
If they just made good guitars at modest prices wouldn't the guitars basically sell themselves? Why do they have to try everything BUT that?
If someone copies a 335 and I were Gibson, who cares, don't I have the resources to make mine really good and affordable, while carrying the original brand name? Do they ask WHY people are making copies? Some are because people are trying to ride the look of a popular model. But some are making them because they feel they have improved upon the current state of the product they are copying. Why can't Gibson just be dedicated to making KILLER 335s and let them sell themselves? This is the internet age. A good review gets around.
Last edited:
- Status
