Gibson warning video over trademark infringements

guitars4you

Interesting view points above - Not had time to look at all the video clips posted above but a couple of thoughts

It appears as though Gibson are defending the outline of the body shape and head stock shape - Not defending the full 3D cosmetic features that we all see (hope that is described correctly) - Look at the actual facia of a Dean and Gibson headstock and it is instantly different - No hint of any issues whatsoever - No confusion - Look at the drawing of the outline of the body + headstock and now it is less obvious as to which guitar now belongs to which company - Yet look at a Dean V with no scratchplate, all its graphics , maybe  a Floyd Rose and again no mistaking what it is - It ain't a Gibson

Yet taking the above into account - Draw an outline of a sports T-shirt and they are all the same - The only difference between the one that Nike sell and Adidas sell is their tick logo and 3 strips logo - So the IPR is the name/logo not the shape of the T-shirt

Not sure if this is how Gibson can defend their IPR or not

As a question - If you look at a bound headstock, of say an LP Custom, with the split diamond inlay - Can the split diamond inlay be classified as Gibson's IPR, as they have utilised it for so many years ? - Or does it have to be a registered trademark ?

Another point - Gibson have obviously gone to their lawyers to discuss IPR and the 'alleged infringements' within the guitar industry - Have the lawyers suggested that yes you have a genuine case and we will issue proceedings - Or have they thought, yep, will give it a go - Win or lose the lawyers get paid

Does make me wonder if Gibson can make more money this year defending their IPR as against building guitars

Could be a while before we find out - What with the first case and possible 2nd hearings - We'll see

poopot

Here’s their current trademarks and such

https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks

OilCityPickups

guitars4you said:

Interesting view points above - Not had time to look at all the video clips posted above but a couple of thoughts

It appears as though Gibson are defending the outline of the body shape and head stock shape - Not defending the full 3D cosmetic features that we all see (hope that is described correctly) - Look at the actual facia of a Dean and Gibson headstock and it is instantly different - No hint of any issues whatsoever - No confusion - Look at the drawing of the outline of the body + headstock and now it is less obvious as to which guitar now belongs to which company - Yet look at a Dean V with no scratchplate, all its graphics , maybe  a Floyd Rose and again no mistaking what it is - It ain't a Gibson

Yet taking the above into account - Draw an outline of a sports T-shirt and they are all the same - The only difference between the one that Nike sell and Adidas sell is their tick logo and 3 strips logo - So the IPR is the name/logo not the shape of the T-shirt

Not sure if this is how Gibson can defend their IPR or not

As a question - If you look at a bound headstock, of say an LP Custom, with the split diamond inlay - Can the split diamond inlay be classified as Gibson's IPR, as they have utilised it for so many years ? - Or does it have to be a registered trademark ?

Another point - Gibson have obviously gone to their lawyers to discuss IPR and the 'alleged infringements' within the guitar industry - Have the lawyers suggested that yes you have a genuine case and we will issue proceedings - Or have they thought, yep, will give it a go - Win or lose the lawyers get paid

Does make me wonder if Gibson can make more money this year defending their IPR as against building guitars

Could be a while before we find out - What with the first case and possible 2nd hearings - We'll see

This thing will probably draw on for a couple of years.

VimFuego

/\ /\ and that is probably what gibson are hoping for, that they can drag this out beyond the other parties ability to contest, and then they'll claim some moral victory. 

FelineGuitars

VimFuego said:

/\ /\ and that is probably what gibson are hoping for, that they can drag this out beyond the other parties ability to contest, and then they'll claim some moral victory. 

Is this what they are trying to do with Brexit?

Seems to be having that effect on UK business of late with almost nobody spending

terada

poopot said:

Here’s their current trademarks and such

https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks

Bonkers. The following words/phrases are now owned by Gibson:

Artisan
Classic Mode
Emperor
Generation
Hound Dog
Pure
Toby
Worn
Magic

OilCityPickups

Interesting ... it appears that myself and ...

Seymour Duncan

DiMarzio

Bare Knuckle

PRS

Lollar

Fender

Well, lets just say any pickup manufacturer ... is likely to get sued if we use the term Humbucker.

However I notice that Gibson call the Patent Applied For pickup in their literature .'PAF' ... naughty ... as Larry DiMarzio trade marked the term  PAF years ago :-)

Musicman20

FelineGuitars said:

VimFuego said:

/\ /\ and that is probably what gibson are hoping for, that they can drag this out beyond the other parties ability to contest, and then they'll claim some moral victory. 

Is this what they are trying to do with Brexit?

Seems to be having that effect on UK business of late with almost nobody spending

Probably....

pmbomb

terada said:

poopot said:

Here’s their current trademarks and such

https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks

Bonkers. The following words/phrases are now owned by Gibson:

Artisan
Classic Mode
Emperor
Generation
Hound Dog
Pure
Toby
Worn
Magic

In the context of their products.

They'd have a case if you made a guitar called a Hound Dog but not for instance a car.

WiresDreamDisasters

pmbomb said:

terada said:

poopot said:

Here’s their current trademarks and such

https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks

Bonkers. The following words/phrases are now owned by Gibson:

Artisan
Classic Mode
Emperor
Generation
Hound Dog
Pure
Toby
Worn
Magic

In the context of their products.

They'd have a case if you made a guitar called a Hound Dog but not for instance a car.

But ... Toby ... ?!

pmbomb

Context.

However the fact it's granted to them doesn't mean it's defensible. Would need to be tested.

poopot

poopot said:

Here’s their current trademarks and such

https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks

Just noticed they have trademarked the phrases “les paul” and “les paul artisan”

wonder if you could get away with “les Paul type”... it’s not infringing on their trademark!...

crunchman

pmbomb said:

Context.

However the fact it's granted to them doesn't mean it's defensible. Would need to be tested.

Some of them have been contested and as far as I can see have not yet been granted e.g. the 335 body shape one:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/539530d2e4b0e3021538f0db/t/54471ca8e4b0f24330a613dc/1413946536449/ttabvue-91218879-OPP-1.pdf

Three-ColourSunburst

Trying to look on the positive side, perhaps the backlash from this will see guitarists and manufacturers finally turning away from the creative straight-jacket created by a desire to play a guitar that looks just like the ones the now long-defunct Gibson company made back in the 50's.

When I was looking for a guitar with a fixed neck and twin hum-cancelling pickups, I too was tempted by the 'mojo' of a 'Les Paul' shaped guitar, then reason intervened and I realised that there were much better designed, better made and better value modern instruments around, without the fragile necks, poor upper fret access and so on of a 'Les Paul'. Now I am even happier that I bought a RevStar instead. 

OilCityPickups

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Trying to look on the positive side, perhaps the backlash from this will see guitarists and manufacturers finally turning away from the creative straight-jacket created by a desire to play a guitar that looks just like the ones the now long-defunct Gibson company made back in the 50's.

When I was looking for a guitar with a fixed neck and twin hum-cancelling pickups, I too was tempted by the 'mojo' of a 'Les Paul' shaped guitar, then reason intervened and I realised that there were much better designed, better made and better value modern instruments around, without the fragile necks, poor upper fret access and so on of a 'Les Paul'. Now I am even happier that I bought a RevStar instead. 

I agree with you 100% there. There are far more interesting things to do with guitar design than simply follow tradition. In fact if Gibson and Fender had followed tradition in the 50s we'd probably still all be playing arch tops ... so abandoning their designs is actually the thing that is really in the spirit of the 50s pioneers!

antonyiv

rossi said:

Lets face it you either want and buy a Gibson or you dont .Gibson are an American made product which is important  to some .The opposition are mainly  imported rip offs.Most rip offs are some one else's design and it was their hard work  that made them what they are ....HOWEVER... most people round the word cant afford or even see a real one so they content themselves with approximate copies  still dreaming of teh real thing .The copies generate the base hobby ,the real ones cream off the top .Both feed each other so Gibson are shooting them selves in  future the wallet .If I buy a cheap shitty Les Paul copy it doesnt mean I bought it instead of a Gibson .It means I wanted a Gibson but couldnt afford it .The internet is full of trolls and fakers.Most wont buy a Gibson ever because they cant play a guitar but can supply an opinion.

So I’m poor because I don’t own a Gibson. 

I got your point, I’m gonna shut up, plug my PRS and cry. 

Philly_Q

WiresDreamDisasters said:

pmbomb said:

terada said:

poopot said:

Here’s their current trademarks and such

https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks

Bonkers. The following words/phrases are now owned by Gibson:

Artisan
Classic Mode
Emperor
Generation
Hound Dog
Pure
Toby
Worn
Magic

In the context of their products.

They'd have a case if you made a guitar called a Hound Dog but not for instance a car.

But ... Toby ... ?!

That's going to kill Fender's novelty jug sideline.

chrisj1602

I don’t get why they have done this now.

A well received new range, seem to be selling pretty well, all good publicity recently, then THAT video.

dindude

Agnesi always had that slightly aggressive edge to his delivery
for me, the sort of next door neighbour with an old fridge and sofa in the front garden but you don’t say anything for fear of repercussions. He puts it to good use here.

As for “ new Gibson” - too much leather and denim for my tastes. 

Simon_M

antonyiv said:

rossi said:

Lets face it you either want and buy a Gibson or you dont .Gibson are an American made product which is important  to some .The opposition are mainly  imported rip offs.Most rip offs are some one else's design and it was their hard work  that made them what they are ....HOWEVER... most people round the word cant afford or even see a real one so they content themselves with approximate copies  still dreaming of teh real thing .The copies generate the base hobby ,the real ones cream off the top .Both feed each other so Gibson are shooting them selves in  future the wallet .If I buy a cheap shitty Les Paul copy it doesnt mean I bought it instead of a Gibson .It means I wanted a Gibson but couldnt afford it .The internet is full of trolls and fakers.Most wont buy a Gibson ever because they cant play a guitar but can supply an opinion.

So I’m poor because I don’t own a Gibson. 

I got your point, I’m gonna shut up, plug my PRS and cry. 

Don’t feed the trolls.