Gibson v Dean trial to start
- Thread starter ICTGoober
- Start date
beaubrummels
Well-known member
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.
Securb
One of Jerry's Kids
Last edited:
Securb
One of Jerry's Kids
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.
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Was 1977 the first case? Isn't that still 25 years into having their trademark unprotected?
ICTGoober
New member
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.
Last edited:
Securb
One of Jerry's Kids
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"
Securb
One of Jerry's Kids
They filed suit and then settled out of court, yes I know the letter starts with "Dear Gibson Dealers" is announcing the lawsuit. "started legal action Federal Courts"
https://www.premierguitar.com/pro-ad...wsuit-les-paul
Last edited:
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
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.
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.
Ashurbanipal
Well-known member
Waiting for all those 19th century Italian mandolin makers to retrospectively sue Gibson from the grave for using the open book headstock.
ErikH
Well-known member
Have you seen the prices of Dean USA models the last few years? They are not far off from, and in some cases more expensive than, Gibsons.
Securb
One of Jerry's Kids
Last edited:
Securb
One of Jerry's Kids
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.
beaubrummels
Well-known member
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-builders/ibanez-lawsuit-elger-guitars/
Last edited:
ThreeChordWonder
New member
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.
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.
