Look out for JHS pre-lawsuit guitars!

Bridgehouse

martinw said:

Bridgehouse said:

martinw said:

I think you're overthinking it @Bridgehouse

It won't get anywhere near a court, so the technicalities don't matter. Gibson are just bullying by having more money to throw at lawyers. They just need to have any sort of case, then hire bigger law firms than anyone who they challenge can afford.

That's probably what their latest loans will finance

 

My post was an answer to @Voxman 's question of why not Les Paul or Strat shapes.

And the TL:DR version of my answer is "just too bloody hard to justify to a court"

Aside from that question, I agree - it's just Gibson being a bully. 

Sorry, was TL:DR.

TBF I didn't read my own answer either.

Bridgehouse

SteveRobinson said:

Bridgehouse said:

I think a lot of this is embodied in US patent law.. 

The issue is not patents but trademarks. The outline of the body shape is seen as distinctive to the brand.

US Trademarks don't allow shapes of physical objects. Its a logo or a brand or a name. Gibson or Fender don't use the actual shape in any of their branding, logos or names....

SteveRobinson

The first paragraph in the Mi-Pro article reads

"Gibson has announced that it has successfully confirmed the exclusive rights to various trademarked body and headstock designs."

Fender terms of use

"FENDER®, STRATOCASTER®, STRAT®, TELECASTER®, TELE®, P BASS®, PRECISION BASS®, and the distinctive headstock designs of these guitars are registered trademarks of Fender." 

Bridgehouse

SteveRobinson said:

The first paragraph in the Mi-Pro article reads

"Gibson has announced that it has successfully confirmed the exclusive rights to various trademarked body and headstock designs."

Lol.

From the USPTO Manual for Trademarks, Patents and Copyright:

1. Do trademarks, copyrights, and patents protect the same things?

   No. Trademarks, copyrights, and patents protect different types of intellectual property. A trademark typically protects brand names and logos used on goods and services. A copyright protects an original artistic or literary work. A patent protects an invention. For example, if you invent a new kind of vacuum cleaner, you would apply for a patent to protect the invention itself. You would apply to register a trademark to protect the brand name of the vacuum cleaner. And you might register a copyright for the TV commercial that you use to market the product.

   
   

   Methinks Gibson could happily trademark their Headstock logo, and definitely the name and branding - but unless they use the shape of the body actually as part of their branding, then I don't see how the trademark laws apply.

   I'm not a US lawyer tho. And goodness knows what goes through their brains... 
   

Reverend

martinw said:

I think you're overthinking it @Bridgehouse

It won't get anywhere near a court, so the technicalities don't matter. Gibson are just bullying by having more money to throw at lawyers. They just need to have any sort of case, then hire bigger law firms than anyone who they challenge can afford.

That's probably what their latest loans will finance

 

Not sure they have more money. I think they have borrowed more money. 

thermionic

There's a lot of ill-informed opinion in this thread. You can't really copyright a headstock or body shape, and you can't register either as a trademark either. The intellectual property at issue here is design rights - the shape and appearance of an object, which reassures the customer they're getting the real thing from the right company. A bit like a trademarked name or logo, but in 3D form.

BTW, I work in intellectual property and I'm currently doing a postgraduate diploma in intellectual property law, covering patents, trademarks, designs & copyright. There are interesting issues here for sure, especially regarding rights registered in different territories, and how the lawyers get around it!

Bridgehouse

thermionic said:

There's a lot of ill-informed opinion in this thread. You can't really copyright a headstock or body shape, and you can't register either as a trademark either. The intellectual property at issue here is design rights - the shape and appearance of an object, which reassures the customer they're getting the real thing from the right company. A bit like a trademarked name or logo, but in 3D form.

BTW, I work in intellectual property and I'm currently doing a postgraduate diploma in intellectual property law, covering patents, trademarks, designs & copyright. There are interesting issues here for sure, especially regarding rights registered in different territories, and how the lawyers get around it!

So how come Gibson announced a trademarked body and headstock design as per Steve R's post?

Schnozz

dindude said:

Gibson's best defence against the competition is to make them properly in the first place.

Bingo.

I deliberately go to all the alternatives - Yamaha, G&L, GJ2, Fret King and Patrick Eggle.

crunchman

thermionic said:

There's a lot of ill-informed opinion in this thread. You can't really copyright a headstock or body shape, and you can't register either as a trademark either. The intellectual property at issue here is design rights - the shape and appearance of an object, which reassures the customer they're getting the real thing from the right company. A bit like a trademarked name or logo, but in 3D form.

BTW, I work in intellectual property and I'm currently doing a postgraduate diploma in intellectual property law, covering patents, trademarks, designs & copyright. There are interesting issues here for sure, especially regarding rights registered in different territories, and how the lawyers get around it!

Gibson do have trademarked body shapes in the US.  Their court case against the PRS Singlecut was based on it:
https://www.law360.com/articles/6887/supreme-ct-passes-on-guitar-trademark-case

As I mentioned above, Fender tried to get a trademark on the Strat body shape a while back and it got thrown out because the body shape has become generic.
http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/fender-loses-guitar-copyright-case-201886

In the US at least it does seem to be possible to get a trademark on a body shape.

SteveRobinson

Bridgehouse said:

thermionic said:

There's a lot of ill-informed opinion in this thread. You can't really copyright a headstock or body shape, and you can't register either as a trademark either. 

So how come Gibson announced a trademarked body and headstock design as per Steve R's post?

Because they are trademarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark ;

"Trademark" includes any device, brand, label, name, signature, word, letter, numerical, shape of goods, packaging, colour or combination of colours, smell, sound, movement or any combination thereof which is capable of distinguishing goods and services of one business from those of others.

Bridgehouse

SteveRobinson said:

Bridgehouse said:

thermionic said:

There's a lot of ill-informed opinion in this thread. You can't really copyright a headstock or body shape, and you can't register either as a trademark either. 

So how come Gibson announced a trademarked body and headstock design as per Steve R's post?

Because they are trademarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark ;

"Trademark" includes any device, brand, label, name, signature, word, letter, numerical, shape of goods, packaging, colour or combination of colours, smell, sound, movement or any combination thereof which is capable of distinguishing goods and services of one business from those of others.

Point taken - I don't disagree

It just seems that the US TPC office does disagree!!

SteveRobinson

Bridgehouse said:

Point taken - I don't disagree

It just seems that the US TPC office does disagree!!

I imagine that they don't need to be registered to be enforced. If they are deemed in the public eye to represent the brand then they are enforcable.

Bridgehouse

SteveRobinson said:

Bridgehouse said:

Point taken - I don't disagree

It just seems that the US TPC office does disagree!!

I imagine that they don't need to be registered to be enforced. If they are deemed in the public eye to represent the brand then they are enforcable.

Ah now that's a good point. Means it's just a legal argument over whether the body shape is a brand representation.

I suspect the lawyers make more money than Gibson...

guitars4you

Bridgehouse said

I imagine that they don't need to be registered to be enforced. If they are deemed in the public eye to represent the brand then they are enforcable.

Ah now that's a good point. Means it's just a legal argument over whether the body shape is a brand representation.

I suspect the lawyers make more money than Gibson...

The above are very valid arguments as far as any lawyer is concerned

If black is 1 an white is a 100 and both these extremes are 100% right and wrong - the 99 points in the middle are grey and this is the part that is debatable and were the lawyers make  a good living

Neil

revsorg said:

Maybe I'm a hopeless idealist, but if you see a company exhibit despicable legal over-reach in an attempt to quell competition don't you vote with your wallet? 

Would you feel the same if you designed something which was copied for gratis many times over without paying a license fee?

guitars4you

Neil said:

revsorg said:

Maybe I'm a hopeless idealist, but if you see a company exhibit despicable legal over-reach in an attempt to quell competition don't you vote with your wallet? 

Would you feel the same if you designed something which was copied for gratis many times over without paying a license fee?

I think you there are many instances were you can create a trademark with your brand but sometimes it is not a unique product you are offering

Look at a pair of jeans - from 10 feet away they all effectively look the same - It is only the logo on the rear pocket or the tag by the belt hooks, that identify your jeans - Same applies to trainers and many sports products - All Tennis Rackets look the same, but you can protect your name still - That is the magic of the Nike tick and the Adidas 3 stripes - two examples of awesome IP in a world when nearly all the competition look similar/same