Gibson warning video over trademark infringements

WiresDreamDisasters

It's not very authentic to remove a video that you believe in because you've got some negative responses.

antonyiv

Gibson Glossary: 
We are protecting our heritage - We will sue you
You've been warned - I'm officially threatening you on the Internet, we will sue you
Gibson is always innovating - We haven't done nothing much other than the robo tuners and Firebird X
Hollywood, call us, we want to work with advertisers and film makers - We want cheap advertising and product placement
We listened to customers - This product is what you want, give us your money
We invested in the factory - We already spent some money, now give us yours
Play authentic - Give us your money

SlopeSoarer

If I were Gibson I'd use what they have... i.e. put their Gibson headstock on their Epiphones and surely they would kill a lot of the fake stuff off.

On the other hand it's got a lot of people talking about Gibson! 

Skipped

OilCityPickups said:

Totally fair to protect a brand or trademark ... and Gibson, Fender and Rickenbacker have been doing that pretty consistently in recent years. The issue is that firstly this a particularly strange way of doing things.

The other issue is that while Rickenbacker have a pretty much 100% record of shutting down the copyists ... this is because they've been consistently on the ball and aggressive in their defense ... Fender and Gibson have let so much slip over the years that clawing back lost ground is practically impossible. Witness the already quoted PRS case that Gibson lost... or the fact that anyone can make a three pickup trem guitar with a Strat body shape ... all Fender could hang onto was the headstock.

The public bluster about their trademarks is more about showing the strength of their new corporate team than protecting anything. What it actually showed was that Gibson are still a bit of a PR nightmare, and are still having trouble staying 'on message'.

On the BIB. I agree.

It is not clear from the video what  is being proposed. But I very much doubt they will go after Tokai.

More likely is that they have engaged a new team of lawyers, who will have less tolerance, or zero tolerance, for builders who put Gibson on the headstock, and who do not put their own name on the headstock. Of course, the strategy will be different for a single high end guitar advertised for sale, when compared to a consignnent of Chinese made guitars crossing a border.

Philtre

So does this mean that Gibson are going to go after the likes of Eastman Guitars with their "Mickey Mouse Ears" and "Moustache" headstock?

DefaultM

Ugh I found it too embarrassing to watch all the way through when it was there, but now it's gone I want it 

mburekenge

You spend years building a rep as 'one of us' at norms with your satirical 'make gibson great' content, sell out,  then throw it all away with one ill conceived video.

Bridgehouse

I wonder if Norm has sent him a message..?

”How’s the new job going? Lol..”

impmann

Smacks of desperation.

tbh, if they were serious, they’d just instruct lawyers. However, because they know a good lawyer will pick holes in their argument, tie up $1000s in legal fees and they will ultimately loose (refer PRS Singlecut), this was an ill conceived spouting off. 

Bad for the brand image and alerts the consumer to other options that may be available....

Gassage

That jacket he's wearing.....I believe Langlitz leathers own the copyright....

Gassage

I also notice they've not mentioned the Nitefly....

guitars4you

impmann said:

Smacks of desperation.

tbh, if they were serious, they’d just instruct lawyers. However, because they know a good lawyer will pick holes in their argument, tie up $1000s in legal fees and they will ultimately loose (refer PRS Singlecut), this was an ill conceived spouting off. 

Bad for the brand image and alerts the consumer to other options that may be available....

I think PRS were one of the guitar businesses with just enough capital to take Gibson on - Can't recall his name, but a big early financial backer of PRS is/was some big hot shot lawyer

I can recall 2 instances in the past - The Duesenberg V and the Tom Anderson Bull Dog - Both companies only produced very low numbers - Something like a 150 V's made - Both companies received the letter of intent from Gibson's lawyers to cease production and/or go to court - With such low sales figures, hence low profit, it was not worth them getting involved in any court case - So they just rolled over and called it a day - ie The threat of legal action is all that was required

I dare say ESP via Navigator, Edwards, Tokai, Heritage and Collings + Eastman could all be potential targets

Yet surely James Curleigh (CEO) should know, that every pair of jeans looks the same/similar - Only major difference is the name/logo on the arse pocket - You don't hear of Levi taking Timberland, Gant or Wrangler to court

Plus every 14 fret acoustic guitar is just about a copy of a Martin if you applied the letter of the law - Yet equally you could just say it is the shape of an acoustic guitar - Like all violins have the same shape

NelsonP

Paging @TerryMorgan

Kittyfrisk

'guitars4you said:

impmann said:

Smacks of desperation.

tbh, if they were serious, they’d just instruct lawyers. However, because they know a good lawyer will pick holes in their argument, tie up $1000s in legal fees and they will ultimately loose (refer PRS Singlecut), this was an ill conceived spouting off. 

Bad for the brand image and alerts the consumer to other options that may be available....

I think PRS were one of the guitar businesses with just enough capital to take Gibson on - Can't recall his name, but a big early financial backer of PRS is/was some big hot shot dentist

FTFY 

OilCityPickups

Skipped said:

OilCityPickups said:

Totally fair to protect a brand or trademark ... and Gibson, Fender and Rickenbacker have been doing that pretty consistently in recent years. The issue is that firstly this a particularly strange way of doing things.

The other issue is that while Rickenbacker have a pretty much 100% record of shutting down the copyists ... this is because they've been consistently on the ball and aggressive in their defense ... Fender and Gibson have let so much slip over the years that clawing back lost ground is practically impossible. Witness the already quoted PRS case that Gibson lost... or the fact that anyone can make a three pickup trem guitar with a Strat body shape ... all Fender could hang onto was the headstock.

The public bluster about their trademarks is more about showing the strength of their new corporate team than protecting anything. What it actually showed was that Gibson are still a bit of a PR nightmare, and are still having trouble staying 'on message'.

On the BIB. I agree.

It is not clear from the video what  is being proposed. But I very much doubt they will go after Tokai.

More likely is that they have engaged a new team of lawyers, who will have less tolerance, or zero tolerance, for builders who put Gibson on the headstock, and who do not put their own name on the headstock. Of course, the strategy will be different for a single high end guitar advertised for sale, when compared to a consignnent of Chinese made guitars crossing a border. 

They stand zero chance of stemming the tide of Chibsons at source as that would involve taking on the Chinese government ... and I doubt even Gibson have the money or the stupidity to play that game. All they can do is rely on the various customs authorities to check and weed out the fakes ... and that seems to be a lottery. 

As someone else said ... simply putting the open book headstock on the Epiphone range would help to wipe out a lot of their competition. Better still 'doing a PRS' and replacing Epiphone with a 'Gibson SE' range with the coveted logo as well as the headstock shape ... that would totally pull the rug out from under the feet of the likes of Tokai. 

designerseye88

IMO If Gibson were making their guitars to the actual spec of the late 50's (correct logo, tailpiece position etc) then they wouldn't need to post this video. 

I can no longer see the video on youtube, Anyone have a link? 

Tenebrous

designerseye88 said:

IMO If Gibson were making their guitars to the actual spec of the late 50's (correct logo, tailpiece position etc) then they wouldn't need to post this video. 

I can no longer see the video on youtube, Anyone have a link? 

I'd like to see it as well, if possible.

Bridgehouse

Doubt it’s around now since Gibson pulled it off YouTube. 

Three-ColourSunburst

Tenebrous said:

designerseye88 said:

IMO If Gibson were making their guitars to the actual spec of the late 50's (correct logo, tailpiece position etc) then they wouldn't need to post this video. 

I can no longer see the video on youtube, Anyone have a link? 

I'd like to see it as well, if possible.

Doubtless the video must have been downloaded by plenty of people. Unfortunately I have a feeling that Gibson might threaten action against any re-posters for copyright infringement.

I wonder if they have been taking public relation tips from McDonalds, given that it all comes across as being about as well-advised as the McLibel case. Unfortunately such attitudes seem to be pretty much a central part of the American corporate mindset.

OilCityPickups

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Tenebrous said:

designerseye88 said:

IMO If Gibson were making their guitars to the actual spec of the late 50's (correct logo, tailpiece position etc) then they wouldn't need to post this video. 

I can no longer see the video on youtube, Anyone have a link? 

I'd like to see it as well, if possible.

Doubtless the video must have been downloaded by plenty of people. Unfortunately I have a feeling that Gibson might threaten action against any re-posters for copyright infringement.

I wonder if they have been taking public relation tips from McDonalds, given that it all comes across as being about as well-advised as the McLibel case. Unfortunately such attitudes seem to be pretty much a central part of the American corporate mindset.

Tactlessness 'holier than thou' attitudes, bullying and U turns are all part of the Trump administration mindset ... why should their big business be any different? :-)