Gibson's legal team back at it…

barnstorm

I've just seen that in addition to going after Kiesel, Gibson has recently taken issue with the Heartbreakers' logo on the grounds that it includes a cartoony Flying V.

As with the idiotic PLAY AUTHENTIC thing, I assume this is just a box-ticking exercise that allows Gibson to demonstrate it has attempted to protect its trademarks, but it seems utterly pointless.

The horse bolted long ago; the people being targeted are taking nothing off the company's bottom line; and even if the majority of customers will never hear about any of this, it's clearly unpopular with a group of people that buy a lot of guitars.

Are there any trademark experts on the forum who could explain why any of this is worth doing?

SandsJonny

My understanding is that companies will take issue with these kinds of things because if they don't, a future case with more severe infingement might defend itself by pointing to the things they 'allowed', arguing that [Gibson] wasn't taking action to protect its IP/Trademarks.

I've heard of similar situations in the video games industry: the developers of Candy Crush Saga have made attempts to block other developers from using the words "Candy" or "Saga" in their game titles - the trademarks they have around Candy Crush games might not necessarily 'allow' them to block the name, but if they don't show that they're trying to protect their IP it can weaken the trademark's validity in other suits.

Might be similar with Gibson, but admittedly I'm not an expert. Could just be more corporate arrogance, since that has been Gibson's usual mode of behaviour for a while.

clarkefan

Barking.  Actually, it's beyond Barking, it's Dagenham.  

Somebody in that company needs a wake up slap.

Philly_Q

Are they going to start targeting artists and record labels because people have been pictured on album covers with Gibson guitars and haven't paid them a royalty?

Kittyfrisk

Philly_Q said:

Are they going to start targeting artists and record labels because people have been pictured on album covers with Gibson guitars and haven't paid them a royalty?

James “JC” Curleigh thanks you for the wonderful revenue raising idea and will action it ASAP.

noisepolluter

I’d be interested to hear what Gibson feel they have to teach the Heartbreakers about authenticity. 

fretmeister

Bunch of eijits. They should have done this 50 years ago.

Far too late to complain now.

barnstorm

SandsJonny said:

if they don't show that they're trying to protect their IP it can weaken the trademark's validity in other suits.

I get this – it just seems that their letter-writing campaigns and court cases are unlikely to achieve anything at this point, unless the target is making obvious copies, Gibson name and all.

They must know, too, that manufacturers based outside the US will never pay any attention to their squawking, and that it has become trivial to import a guitar. Surely there are better things they could do with the money they're spending on legal fees?

The other thing that irritates me about it is that the shoe could easily be on the other foot. That Modern Double Cut that Gibson was so proud of was half PRS, half ESP Potbelly and all shit.

SandsJonny

barnstorm said: 

I get this – it just seems that their letter-writing campaigns and court cases are unlikely to achieve anything at this point, unless the target is making obvious copies, Gibson name and all.

...

The other thing that irritates me about it is that the shoe could easily be on the other foot. That Modern Double Cut that Gibson was so proud of was half PRS, half ESP Potbelly and all shit.

You're absolutely right! And since Gibson lost that suit against PRS I'd be surprised if they could present a real challenge to anyone making something similar but distinct. It's all posturing and attempting to cash in on legacy, maybe that's easier than making better guitars :')

HAL9000

Reminiscent of Warner Brothers suing The Marx Brothers for using the word Casablanca in the title of their film A Night in Casablanca. (The Marx Brothers countersued Warner Brothers for using the word brothers in their company name.)

JerkMoans

barnstorm said:

 Surely there are better things they could do with the money they're spending on legal fees?

Personally, I can think of nothing better for large corporations to spend their money on than the very reasonable fees of honest, hard-working practitioners of the legal dark arts.

skullfunkerry

.

skullfunkerry

Philly_Q said:

Are they going to start targeting artists and record labels because people have been pictured on album covers with Gibson guitars and haven't paid them a royalty?

Back when I worked in engineering sales, there was a company called Fenner who invented and trademarked a thing called a taper-lock bush. They sued some of their own distributors for using the phrase "taper-lock bush" in advertising, as it was a Fenner trademark... even though the distributors were advertising that they sold Fenner taper-lock bushes  

prowla

Whilst I do think a company should be able to defent its IP, it seems like the train left the station long ago.

soma1975

It's all just trying to bully smaller companies into a licence deal so Gibson gets an income without having to build or advertise or spend on anything. 

Sassafras

Seems like Terry Morgan packed in his guitar making just in the nick of time.

thegummy

barnstorm said:

As with the idiotic PLAY AUTHENTIC thing, I assume this is just a box-ticking exercise that allows Gibson to demonstrate it has attempted to protect its trademarks, but it seems utterly pointless. 

That seems to tie in with something I heard the other day in an interview with someone who was involved in the professional wrestling business in the 90s.

There was a situation where a couple of their most popular wrestlers moved to a rival company under new names and the company replaced them with a couple of random guys using their old names and costumes. The audience found it daft and tacky at the time and it just seemed like a stupid idea.

But in this interview it was revealed that it was actually them setting an example of how they owned the IP separate to the original portrayers of the characters so that they could refer to it as a precedent in future legal cases if they had to.

prowla

I think that the patent laws have it about right, where the exclusive patent is granted for a set time and then expires, allowing the design to be opened up to the world.

I also think that Trademark designs should be registered contiguously from the outset, to avoid retrospective application.

Then there's copyright; again that expires after a time.

Sassafras

I wonder how they'd respond if someone made replicas of the Firebird X, would Gibson be too ashamed to admit it was one of their designs?

thegummy

prowla said:

I think that the patent laws have it about right, where the exclusive patent is granted for a set time and then expires, allowing the design to be opened up to the world.

That obviously works well for humanity as a whole and, if anything makes something right, then that does. So I agree, it seems to be a good way that's already in place.

I have to admit though, I do sympathise with companies who come up with a design that everyone wants but then has to compete with other companies making copies of that design. I could completely understand if a company found that unfair.

Philly_Q

Sassafras said:

I wonder how they'd respond if someone made replicas of the Firebird X, would Gibson be too ashamed to admit it was one of their designs?

Someone should do that, make a really great guitar without any of the electronic gubbins but the exact size and shape of the Firebird X.  Then let's see what Gibson do.

The only problem being - as I've just reminded myself - even the body shape was fucking hideous.