New wave of "lawsuit" guitars?

[EBK]

Yeah I saw that... the Flying V shape shows 'no demonstration of distinctive character' is an interesting comment from the EU ruling

But, it is the only guitar shape that I hate! Doesn't that count for something? 

[matmosphere]

Yeah I saw that... the Flying V shape shows 'no demonstration of distinctive character' is an interesting comment from the EU ruling

But, it is the only guitar shape that I hate! Doesn't that count for something? 

No it just means you need to watch more Judas Priest videos:)

I kid.. I don't think that would be a solution to any problems.


I used to not care for it either, but a friend got one several years back and it won me over. It's a rock n roll guitar that forces you to stand up while you rock out (as we all should)

[Max]

I'm no lawyer, but I would consider this:
the shape of the Flying V guitar "was very original when it was released on the market in 1958, it cannot however deny the evolution of the market during the following 50 years, which was henceforward characterised by a wide variety of available shapes."
This:
"The presence on the market of a significant number of shapes encountered by consumers makes it unlikely that they will regard a particular shape as belonging to a specific manufacturer rather than being just one of the variety of shapes characterising the market."
and this:
the Flying V had become, "One possible variant of the many existing shapes."
pretty interesting and possibly (or I should say hopefully) applicable to any body shape on the market. That would be a good blow to the big F and big G companies...

[EBK]

Found a counterfeit zebra today:

[Muadzin]

Two things, empires in decline do stupid things that usually play no small part in furthering their decline. And Gibson is pretty much a business empire in decline. And secondly Gibson has developed a business culture that loves to make stupid decisions, and this one seems pretty much in character.

[Tremster]

News:
https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-loses-flying-v-trademark-case-in-eu-court/
https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-officially-responds-from-confrontation-to-collaboration/

[lars]

I wonder how many of these "rogue overseas players" were at one time officially affiliated with Gibson, but once Gibson got into serious financial trouble, Gibson simply stopped outsourcing to them.
I've seen cheaper Gibson knock-offs that are made overseas, that can sometimes cause consumer confusion in the market. They're called Epiphones...

[pickdropper]

I wonder how many of these "rogue overseas players" were at one time officially affiliated with Gibson, but once Gibson got into serious financial trouble, Gibson simply stopped outsourcing to them.
I've seen cheaper Gibson knock-offs that are made overseas, that can sometimes cause consumer confusion in the market. They're called Epiphones...

Legally, the Epiphones argument is a non-starter.  They have every right to license their trademarks to companies and they can still file lawsuits against other companies for violation.  Fender uses the same headstocks and body design on Squires and licenses the headstock to Warmoth.  Warmoth certainly wouldn't pay for that right if they didn't have to.  The fact that Gibson owns Epiphone makes it even more of a non-starter.

I think the video was ill-planned, but the Ephone argument won't hold any water.  I'd be surprised if they win against Dean as well, but we'll see.

[lars]

Legally, the Epiphones argument is a non-starter.

It was just an ironic joke. I know Epiphone is owned by Gibson. It's just funny that their whole philosophy lately is "play a REAL Gibson"...buy American...rogue overseas manufacturing...blah, blah, blah. Gibson themselves capitalize on using cheap overseas labor and outsourcing parts and production. If their production plant in Tennessee suddenly has issues, where do you think the necks and bodies start getting shipped in from? Do you really think they're going to say anything and lose money?
Fender had this very thing happen when CBS sold it in the mid-80's. That "USA-made" Fender Strat from 1985 was mostly made in Japan. But it's got a "Made in USA" decal on the headstock. That's all that matters.

[pickdropper]

Legally, the Epiphones argument is a non-starter.

It was just an ironic joke. I know Epiphone is owned by Gibson. It's just funny that their whole philosophy lately is "play a REAL Gibson"...buy American...rogue overseas manufacturing...blah, blah, blah. Gibson themselves capitalize on using cheap overseas labor and outsourcing parts and production. If their production plant in Tennessee suddenly has issues, where do you think the necks and bodies start getting shipped in from? Do you really think they're going to say anything and lose money?
Fender had this very thing happen when CBS sold it in the mid-80's. That "USA-made" Fender Strat from 1985 was mostly made in Japan. But it's got a "Made in USA" decal on the headstock. That's all that matters.

There's a whole lot of conjecture in that.  Gibson importing bodies for USA guitars?  I mean, it's not impossible, but there have been no indications of that happening thus far.  That's a bit of a straw man within this context.

I've said (and still say) that the whole approach with publicizing their litigation was handled very poorly and put a lot of people off right at the time where Gibson was starting to get some momentum again.  Their new management should have been more media savvy than that.  But I have a hard time finding any sort of outrage over the existence of Epiphone.  To your point, it does seem a bit ironic given their whole "play authentic" thing, but that just underscores the lack of foresight on Gibson's media approach.

A lot of people hate Gibson anyway and this just fuels their dislike.  I happen to quite like Gibson guitars but have been disappointed with their approach in the past.  I was hoping the new management would approach things a bit differently.  If they learn from this, they'll bounce back quickly enough, but we'll have to see what they do going forward.

[Tremster]

https://www.gearnews.com/dean-guitars-alleges-gibson-threatened-dealers-over-copyrights/

[matmosphere]

I doubt it's really the case, but this all makes Gibson look desperate to produce cash. Could they really have so little to lose at this point?

I personally don't play any Gibson's and really dislike how they handle themselves as a company, but I also can't imagine a guitar landscape without them. I hope these guys stop with this crap, because I'm worried that's where this will lead

[EBK]

Just speculating here:

I don't think Gibson is really worried about Dean, per se, or even convinced that they can win outright.  They seem to be flexing their muscles to rehabilitate the deterrence value of their IP portfolio.  It is becoming easier and easier for overseas manufacturers to whip out surprisingly high quality products similar to Gibson that wouldn't necessarily confuse buyers but would reduce sales.  Gibson wants to make that look more expensive so the clone market will hopefully go after lower hanging fruit (less hassle to make strats and teles).  They are doing this through the publicity rather than the lawsuit itself.  It's basically viral marketing.  They are using Dean to put on a theatrical performance.  The more eyes on the show, the more valuable the stunt becomes.

The fact that we are talking about it means Gibson is getting what they want.

[matmosphere]

Just speculating here:

I don't think Gibson is really worried about Dean, per se, or even convinced that they can win outright.  They seem to be flexing their muscles to rehabilitate the deterrence value of their IP portfolio.  It is becoming easier and easier for overseas manufacturers to whip out surprisingly high quality products similar to Gibson that wouldn't necessarily confuse buyers but would reduce sales.  Gibson wants to make that look more expensive so the clone market will hopefully go after lower hanging fruit (less hassle to make strats and teles).  They are doing this through the publicity rather than the lawsuit itself.  It's basically viral marketing.  They are using Dean to put on a theatrical performance.  The more eyes on the show, the more valuable the stunt becomes.

The fact that we are talking about it means Gibson is getting what they want.

Interesting perspective, I think you're right. In the long run there is nothing they can do about the Chinese knock off stuff, the Chinese government would have to be onboard for anything to happen there and that's just not gonna happen.

[Aentons]

I don't mean to sound like a Gibson apologist but I will play devil's advocate here a bit to try and "keep it real"... I do like Gibson products, but I agree that the corporation has had its fair share of misadventure.

I dont know... again, pure speculation but... I think Gibson knows they can't really win on the Les Paul trademark shape, but I think they attempted to protect some of their more unique and newer trademark shapes like the V and Explorer and a long list of smaller things from USA builders in particular, and that's why Dean/Luna was targeted. There is not jack they can do about the individually imported overseas stuff, but imports sold in the USA and USA built stuff is a different story. I think with Dean, it's just a "straw that broke the camel's back" type situation with the accumulated number of offenses, in combination with the changes at Gibson that "stirred the pot". I mean, they gave them a cease and desist in 2017 in relation to the "Flying V body shape, Explorer body shape, ES body shape as well as the Hummingbird and Moderne trademarks" and they didn't act on it in any way and even went a little further with a big F'U for their 2019 line. I don't see anyone else out there advertising a basically exact "USA Standard" V or Explorer shape with a "rich history" and "Patents Pending" and all that jazz... I mean most of Dean's business is based around the V, Z and ML (which is just a combination of V&Z) shapes.

https://www.deanguitars.com/new-for-2019




Here is Gibson's published list of trademarks:
https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks


A couple of the major offenses:

HUMMINGBIRD ® (U.S. Reg. No. 1931670) For:stringed musical instruments, namely guitars
Registration Date: Oct. 31, 1995
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=1931670&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
https://www.lunaguitars.com/query?upc=814064029262

ES body shape ® (U.S. Reg. No. 2007277)
Registration Date:Oct. 08, 1996
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2007277&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
https://www.amazon.com/Luna-ATH-501-NAT-Semi-Hollow-Body/dp/B004T9K7R4
https://www.lunaguitars.com/electric-guitars
(notice that the Athena hollow bodies have been discontinued/removed)



Here are a couple of examples of some of the other minor "straw" offenses that are not necessarily trademark infringements:

F-Style Mandolin
https://www.lunaguitars.com/query?upc=814064022508

SG and double neck shapes with trapezoid inlays:
https://www.deanguitars.com/subcategory?series=gran_sport_series

Also, Look at how similar the Dean acoustic head stock shape is to the Gibson open book. Its one of the closest I've seen.



It looks like a lot of these trademarks were not actually secured till the mid 90's into the mid 2010's, so the argument that they have not been pursuing trademark protection doesn't seem as applicable and the timeline starts to make a little more sense. I assumed (like many others I'm sure) that Gibson has held these for much, much longer.
https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/the-key-dates-leading-up-to-gibsons-lawsuit-against-dean-guitars/

If you dig into the trademark site details for each registration you can see a lot of really interesting stuff about how they have be pursuing infringers over the years.

My point is, if you really look at all the details, Dean/Luna really does seem to be the biggest overall pursue-able offender.