It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
"...consumers are likely to mistakenly believe Theodore guitars are associated with PRS and the McCarty Estate, so Registrant's use of the Theodore mark creates a likelihood of confusion."
I have to say that the above is about as tenuous and unlikely as it's possible to be, and anyone splashing out £4-5k on a Theodore is going to be 99.9% certain as to what they're buying and the associations that come with it.
Lawyers do try and stir the pot, though...
And who directs their legal policy?
Well, probably their lawyers.
PS: do you know what the best thing about the slimebag lawyers working for Trump and his cronies is? They end up not getting paid half the time.
I wonder if Fender or G&L could sue me if I released a guitar called the Leonidas?
Lawyers don't direct legal policy. They would advise those who direct legal policy, and offer recommendations and state what the law has to say about a potential decision or act.
How legal policy (if what is meant is legal strategy) is directed varies depending on the structure of a company of course. But, it would either be directed by an MD, owner, in-house legal department or legal director (not an exhaustive list). In my experience, none of those are "lawyers".
If Gibson use external IP lawyers (I haven't looked into whether they do), their lawyers will purely advise on risks of a strategy, potential strength of a case and possible solutions. They will never say "here's an idea, sue PRS for Silver Sky". It is Gibson's board of directors ultimately governing strategy, the lawyers just advise and file the paperwork. Gibson would sign off on any of that before it is filed.
I know the Trump comment is a joke/hyperbole, but in terms of relatively, even if you aren't a fan of Gibson and their legal policy - whoever is making the decision is nowhere near Trump's level, and definitely not Gibson's lawyers. There is a bit of a difference between filing a slightly silly (but entirely admissable) legal proceeding Vs trying to halt the democratic exchange of power and trying to argue that a president could have Seal Team murder a political rival and have immunity from any criminal prosecution!
They need to amalgamate everyone to one set of laws that covers the whole country.
As it stands now it’s a bloody mess that just makes money for legal systems in all states in different ways which is so wrong.
I suppose Gibson may have insisted on the counter-claim to highlight what it sees as the absurdity of the PRS claim. PRS has moved to sever the claim and counter-claim, in the interests of efficiency and fairness. on the grounds that they are unrelated. And so it continues.
https://guitarbomb.com/2024/01/16/are-we-about-to-see-a-new-gibson-theodore-model/
(Edit: I see I did say that, just a bit further up the page.)
Want to lol and add wisdom for this