Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

accipiter

New member
A trademark infringement case involving a popular electric guitar ended yesterday when the Supreme Court declined to hear a case alleging that Stevensville-based Paul Reed Smith Guitars copied a brand made by Gibson Guitar Corp.

The court's decision leaves standing an appellate ruling that Paul Reed Smith did not infringe on the trademark of Gibson.

Gibson Guitar, of Nashville, Tenn., alleged that its Les Paul model guitar, which is popular among rock musicians, led to the creation of Paul Reed Smith's Singlecut guitar. But Paul Reed Smith said its guitar, which has developed a following among musicians such as Carlos Santana, was unique.

The disagreement centered on the way the guitar makers designed and produced the instrument. Single cutaway describes a style in which the instrument is cut out on one side to allow access to the higher frets and strings on the fingerboard.

The dispute was closely watched in music circles because other manufacturers have used similar design styles, an argument that Paul Reed Smith made in defending its product.

Paul Reed Smith, the company's founder, said there are 30 or more guitars on the market that have a similar shape to the Les Paul model. A lawyer who represents Paul Reed Smith said the guitars typically are priced at about $3,000 each.

In February 2000, a month after Paul Reed Smith introduced the Singlecut at a trade show, Gibson demanded Paul Reed Smith stop producing and selling the Singlecut. Gibson said it had a trademark on the style, according to court documents.

When Paul Reed Smith refused to stop making the guitar, Gibson sued in November 2000.

A federal District Court in Nashville ruled in favor of Gibson in 2004, granting an injunction barring Paul Reed Smith from making the guitar.

Paul Reed Smith appealed the decision to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Nashville, which ruled in its favor in 2005, allowing it to resume Singlecut guitar production.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court declined to hear Gibson's appeal, leaving in place the 6th Circuit opinion favoring Paul Reed Smith.

A spokeswoman for Gibson and the company's lawyer could not be reached yesterday.

Smith said his company did not violate the trademark.

"There's a difference between being competitive and copying," Smith said.

William D. Coston, a Venable LLP attorney who represented Paul Reed Smith in the case, said the appellate court ruling and the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case further clarify trademark restrictions on product shape.

"The law says to win a trademark case you have to show a likelihood of confusion," Coston said. "Gibson was forced to concede that no one would ever be confused at the point of sale."

Steve Duvall, a sales associate at Music-Go-Around in Cockeysville, said many companies have mimicked the Les Paul style.

"For the longest time, Gibson overlooked it," he said. But with the popularity of the Paul Reed Smith's Singlecut, "the company had really broken into the same market."

Gibson has manufactured musical instruments for more than 100 years. It introduced the Les Paul line in 1952, according to court documents. Smith began manufacturing guitars in the 1970s and he opened his factory in 1985.

Although relatively new to the market, Paul Reed Smith guitars flourished as an alternative to Gibson and Fender electric guitars - two well-known brands, but with distinct sounds. Paul Reed Smith makes guitars that could sound like either brand
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

jmh151 said:
That's old news

Actually, the US Supreme Court denying to hear Gibson's appeal is new news. ;) PRS's victory in the Court of Appeals is old news, and was the decision that Gibson was trying to appeal to.
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

No, Gibson can't appeal. The US Supreme Court denied hearing the case on appeal. You can't go any higher than the US Supreme Court. It's over. Game. Set. Match PRS.

Good for PRS. This ends an unfortunately chapter in our industry's history.
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

Even though I like Gibson I sided with PRS on this from the get-go, so I'm really glad they won!
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

MikeS said:
Actually, the US Supreme Court denying to hear Gibson's appeal is new news. ;) PRS's victory in the Court of Appeals is old news, and was the decision that Gibson was trying to appeal to.
correct!
US supreme court not hearing this case is the definitive end of this case.
this means gibson has no legal option left.
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

I say this is certainly a good thing for everyone involved. Hopefully it will push Gibson to be more competitive and make the changes necessary to build the quality guitars we all know they are capable of.
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

rguser said:
correct!
US supreme court not hearing this case is the definitive end of this case.
this means gibson has no legal option left.

All Gibson can do now is invade the PRS factory in black helicopters, kill all their workers, destroy their equipment, and carpet bomb all music retailers and Mom & Pop shops that sell PRS single-cut guitars.
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

I'm a Gibson whore but it was kind of a dumb suit. They've got a much better case against the Hamer Standard (Explorer) and the Flying V with other makers than about the PRS Single Cut.

Plus there are plenty of cheap LP copies out there that look far more like a real LP than the PRS.
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

There is nothing like fear (of sales losses) in a manufacturer's eyes to make them improve their product.
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

Zhangliqun said:
I'm a Gibson whore but it was kind of a dumb suit. They've got a much better case against the Hamer Standard (Explorer) and the Flying V with other makers than about the PRS Single Cut.

This suit was less about trademark or copyright infringement than it was about sticking it to your biggest competition. Sure, Gibson would have better cases against many other manufacturers, but none of them represent any real competition for Gibson. PRS is the only one that can take a reasonable sized chunk out of Gibson's market.
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

MikeS said:
. PRS is the only one that can take a reasonable sized chunk out of Gibson's market.

yeah..but eventually all those guys come to their senses and switch back to Strats and Paulas








JK! :fingersx: :laugh2:
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

Evan Skopp said:
No, Gibson can't appeal...This ends an unfortunately chapter in our industry's history.
In addition, it hopefully sets precedent, making it harder/less advantageous for them to muscle others in the future. That's perhaps the hidden victory here. The decision and Supreme Court denial can be referenced later, and perhaps strike down future suits in their infancy. I doubt it will shock their business ethics, probably nothing will do that. But from a financial standpoint it may curb their itchy trigger finger, now that they've seen the outcome.

On the flip side, I would hope it wouldn't embolden copycats. I still think it's fair to litigate an exact LP replica, or headstock silouhette. There are enough changes you can make to an LP that you don't have to make a total knockoff.
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

I wonder how much this case has cost PRS to come to this end.
one mil? five? ten?
anyone has a ball park?
regardless of the cost of PRS, the case now can be referred in the future to avoid other paying that kind of money for a BS lawsuit.
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

The interesting part of this story is yet to be written.

With the decision in place it means that virtually anyone can now make a Les Paul-looking guitar.

Will the Tokai clones being made overseas now find a market in the U.S.?

Will ESP go for a more straight-ahead looking clone with the EC series?

The decision is a go-ahead to take a chunk out of Gibsons market. The results will be interesting.
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

rguser said:
I wonder how much this case has cost PRS to come to this end.
one mil? five? ten?
anyone has a ball park?
regardless of the cost of PRS, the case now can be referred in the future to avoid other paying that kind of money for a BS lawsuit.

That's what I'm wondering. How much did Paul have to shell out in legal cost?

Now all PRS has to do is sell their Singlecut for $2200-$2500, and go head to head with LP Stds and 58 Historics, and it'll take them half a year to recoup the legal cost. Jeez, all they have to do is set their guitars up the way they've always been to sway consumers away from Gibson.

I love Gibson, Fender, and PRS, but it's no secret that PRS have a pro setup right off the shelf, Fender is hit or miss, and Gibsons have action like the Golden Gate Bridge, and a customer can't even fret chords that don't sound sour. Maybe all their legal money should have paid for more final setup employees.......or some sober ones. :laugh2:
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

mustve been a smokey courtroom :D

actually, i do not think this judgement opens the doors to a flood of LP clones ... the merits were argued exclusively about 'trade dress' ... prs won because the PRS singlecut has copious differences from an LP and 'would not be confused at point of sale' ... if gibson had taken some of the less threatening, but more directly copied guitar makers to court, they'dve won ... in fact, they did years ago, which is why most of the clones are out of this country (e.g. tokais in canada, etc) ... also, it wouldnt surprise me if some of the 'near clone' makers pay a licensing fee to gibson to keep the lawyers away (e.g heritage, etc)

t4d
 
Last edited:
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

Skarekrough said:
With the decision in place it means that virtually anyone can now make a Les Paul-looking guitar.

Have you even read the decision? That wasn't the conclusion at all; the conclusion was that the Singlecut wasn't enough like a Les Paul to cause confusion in the marketplace.

IMO, Gibson could, and probably should, prosecute cases like these against Tokai, Edwards, et al.
 
Re: Guitar maker PRS triumphs in court

accipiter said:
"There's a difference between being competitive and copying," Smith said.

I think this one quote nicely sums up the whole drama.
 
Back
Top