Are Gibson classifieds going to be banned?

[Skinnyman]

5 hours ago, prowla said:

If it's a registered trademark, then it is theirs.

Registered in 1987 apparently.

[BigRedX]

2 hours ago, markdavid said:

I own no copies of any Gibson basses.  I know Epiphone is Gibsons Squier but the difference is that Squier at least produce versions of Fender basses that are fairly decent quality at all price points, Epiphone on the other hand!! I would totally gig an affinity Squier P or J bass, I would not rely on an Epiphone EB0.

However you are not comparing like for like.

A Squier bass is pretty much the same as a MIA Fender except made with cheaper labour, slightly cheaper materials and supposedly not quite as rigorous quality control.

Most Epiphone basses share very little in common with their Gibson counterparts apart from the name and the basic body shape.

[markdavid]

9 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

However you are not comparing like for like.

A Squier bass is pretty much the same as a MIA Fender except made with cheaper labour, slightly cheaper materials and supposedly not quite as rigorous quality control.

Most Epiphone basses share very little in common with their Gibson counterparts apart from the name and the basic body shape.

Very true and this is why Squier seems to be held in much higher esteem than Epiphone, I do not advocate counterfeits but I have to feel that Gibson are not helping themselves by doing this

[skankdelvar]

I just think that Gibson are behaving oddly pi55ing on their own chips by behaving like a peevish gorilla at a time when they should be focused on mending fences with a sizeable slab of disaffected consumers. The time to pursue copyright infringement is when customers (and potential customers) are back onside with the company. 

That said, it might be that the hedge fund wonks who now run the company are attempting to enhance the value of the company by clearing up any unattractively loose ends in respect of trademarks which might excite the concerns of future investors or outright buyers. A sign that Gibson may be back up for sale sooner than expected? Who can say?

If, however, Gibson's plan is simply and negligently to run high-profile lawsuits alongside their customer re-engagement strategy then that's Juskiewiecz levels of crazy.

Edited June 21, 2019 by skankdelvar
reinforcement of sentiment

[Skinnyman]

54 minutes ago, skankdelvar said:

That said, it might be that the hedge fund wonks who now run the company are attempting to enhance the value of the company by clearing up any unattractively loose ends in respect of trademarks which might excite the concerns of future investors or outright buyers. A sign that Gibson may be back up for sale sooner than expected? Who can say?

Nail. Head.

The wonks in question may know c*ck-all about making guitars but  they know a lot about making money. Gibson is a heritage brand and the value is in its history. Cleaning up the trademarks and any IP questions may not add a huge amount to the value but it will make everything a lot cleaner and make the brand much more attractive to a new owner.

The Epiphone thing is curious - some of their models are fine instruments in their own right. I have a lovely ES-175 and I've tried a few of their jazz boxes and really liked them. On the other hand, some of their output is truly dire.

[skankdelvar]

1 hour ago, Skinnyman said:

The Epiphone thing is curious - some of their models are fine instruments in their own right.

Their 'Inspired By' range is particularly toothsome. Who among us might not covet a well-made reissue of the Wilshire or the 1966 Century below?

£450-ish new inc top quality hard case,  a dinky little replica of the original certificate of ownership and strung 11-52 from the factory. Scrupulous attention to detail that the main Gibson brand might do well to adopt

Edited June 21, 2019 by skankdelvar

[tauzero]

15 hours ago, prowla said:

Trademark is specific and you have to register the designs. Rickenbacker have their headstock, the TRC, and elements of the body shape registered.

The companies do have to show they are actively protecting their IP.

It's no different really to fake Levis, Louis Vuitton handbags, Mac clones, Concordski, and so-on.

(For Rickenbacker there is a bit of hypocrisy though, as they are now selling a treble pickup inner cover which is a straight rip-off of a 3rd party one.)

That doesn't answer my question at all though. Is it a trademark infringement if it looks quite a lot like it, or if it's millimetre-perfect, or is there a certain tolerance that it infringes if within but not if it's without?

[tauzero]

13 hours ago, markdavid said:

No not at all, I am just saying that Fender by providing products at all price points have provided ways that everyone can afford to buy a decent quality P or Jazz bass from them (even the affinity range is decent these days) which is surely a better way of going about things than Gibson have done

Gibson killed off the Epiphone Del Rey because it was too good.

[Skinnyman]

1 hour ago, tauzero said:

That doesn't answer my question at all though. Is it a trademark infringement if it looks quite a lot like it, or if it's millimetre-perfect, or is there a certain tolerance that it infringes if within but not if it's without?

In the case of the Les Paul registration, it's the shape. There's no size or measurements specified on the registration so presumably it would be determined by a judge's subjective opinion of it came to a court case.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Skinnyman

[prowla]

8 hours ago, tauzero said:

That doesn't answer my question at all though. Is it a trademark infringement if it looks quite a lot like it, or if it's millimetre-perfect, or is there a certain tolerance that it infringes if within but not if it's without?

These are Rickenbacker's EU trademark registration.

https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/?fbclid=IwAR0u4vffxj70eIGkAh_R9_cp5T-yminhUtYVv1Kqec3HaXjeGGNXgjS97Yg#details/trademarks/010177038

https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/?fbclid=IwAR2HmeLqCX6nVQ3iBQXNjkUnKBWrevFl4xe_Ks5f5ZpKyvqYUgTTv7UUUIk#details/trademarks/010177004

 

 

 

[Nicko]

US Trademark law includes the Langham Act which includes various tests to indicate whether trademark has been infringed.  While Gibson can claim the shape of the Les Paul, and even elements of the Les Paul, they would need to prove that the intent of the other manufacturer is to confuse buyers into thinking they are buying a Les Paul.  It shouldn't be difficult to demonstrate that anyone looking for a £1000 Gibson Les Paul (I think thats base price for the two pickup, single cutaway design) will not buy, for exampe, a £400 ESP by mistake, especially as the ESP ony has three control knobs. Most manufacturers modify the headstock shape and this is probably enough to argue that its not a copy designed to confuse. 

The PRS single cut which was the subject of a successful suit, overturned on appeal, is is the same market place and price point as the Gibbo, but the court decided anyone buying a PRS would know it wasn't a Gibson, but more importantly that PRS did not intend to deceive buyers into thinking they were buying the "real thing".  Unfortunately for PRS quoting guitar players ability to tell a quality PRS form a botched Gibbo doesn't come into it.

[DoubleOhStephan]

12 minutes ago, Nicko said:

US Trademark law includes the Langham Act which includes various tests to indicate whether trademark has been infringed.  While Gibson can claim the shape of the Les Paul, and even elements of the Les Paul, they would need to prove that the intent of the other manufacturer is to confuse buyers into thinking they are buying a Les Paul.  It shouldn't be difficult to demonstrate that anyone looking for a £1000 Gibson Les Paul (I think thats base price for the two pickup, single cutaway design) will not buy, for exampe, a £400 ESP by mistake, especially as the ESP ony has three control knobs. Most manufacturers modify the headstock shape and this is probably enough to argue that its not a copy designed to confuse. 

Gibson aren't actually suing in regards to the Les Paul though - 

Gibson has reportedly filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit against Armadillo Enterprises, the parent company of Dean Guitars and Luna Guitars.

In the lawsuit, which was first reported by Guitar.com, Gibson alleges trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, unfair competition and trademark dilution on the part of Armadillo. Particularly, Gibson says Armadillo has run afoul of its Flying V, Explorer, ES and SG, "Dove Wing" headstock design, "Hummingbird" name and "Moderne" trademarks.

[steve-bbb]

On 14/06/2019 at 18:42, Sibob said:

However, it does ultimately come across as a big corporate threat.

this ... especially on the back of their recent corporate attitude of style over substance

[Sibob]

😂

Si

[skankdelvar]

Oh, Si! Thank you so much for that vid. 

[prowla]

Gibson's registered trademarks (US):

https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks

Fender's:

https://patentsrockblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/spotlight-on-fender-trademarks/

Those are the things they can take legal action against.

[Nicko]

6 hours ago, DoubleOhStephan said:

Gibson aren't actually suing in regards to the Les Paul though - 

Gibson has reportedly filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit against Armadillo Enterprises, the parent company of Dean Guitars and Luna Guitars.

In the lawsuit, which was first reported by Guitar.com, Gibson alleges trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, unfair competition and trademark dilution on the part of Armadillo. Particularly, Gibson says Armadillo has run afoul of its Flying V, Explorer, ES and SG, "Dove Wing" headstock design, "Hummingbird" name and "Moderne" trademarks.

Which fits my point exactly.  No one buying a Dean V with a V headstock is going to think its a Gibson with a diamond headstock.  I'm not familiar with the Dean Moderne, but the original Gibbo prototype had an odd shaped headstock, and theres a limited edition with a headstock looking very much like a Dean but that wasnt put into production until the early 80s - after Dean started.  I don't know when Dean first started using the V headstock though.

[DoubleOhStephan]

2 minutes ago, Nicko said:

Which fits my point exactly.  No one buying a Dean V with a V headstock is going to think its a Gibson with a diamond headstock.  I'm not familiar with the Dean Moderne, but the original Gibbo prototype had an odd shaped headstock, and theres a limited edition with a headstock looking very much like a Dean but that wasnt put into production until the early 80s - after Dean started.  I don't know when Dean first started using the V headstock though.

Its not the headstock shape that Gibson are sueing over, it's the V & Z body shape. 

Fwiw, Dean have told them to shove it, saying they've been making those body shapes since the 70s. 

Be interesting to see the outcome of all this. 

[DoubleOhStephan]

12 minutes ago, prowla said:

Gibson's registered trademarks (US):

https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks

Fender's:

https://patentsrockblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/spotlight-on-fender-trademarks/

Those are the things they can take legal action against.

Here's what Gibson are claiming for - 

At issue are Gibson’s Flying V body shape design (US registration number 2051790), its Explorer body shape design (US registration number 2053805), its ES body shape design (US registration number 2007277), its HUMMINGBIRD (US registration number 1931670), and its MODERNE (US registration number 3588609) registrations.

https://www.trademarksandbrandsonline.com/news/gibson-sues-armadillo-over-guitar-trademarks-5462

[Skinnyman]

13 minutes ago, DoubleOhStephan said:

Here's what Gibson are claiming for - 

At issue are Gibson’s Flying V body shape design (US registration number 2051790), its Explorer body shape design (US registration number 2053805), its ES body shape design (US registration number 2007277), its HUMMINGBIRD (US registration number 1931670), and its MODERNE (US registration number 3588609) registrations.

https://www.trademarksandbrandsonline.com/news/gibson-sues-armadillo-over-guitar-trademarks-5462

Interesting. The Flying V registration was filed in 1994. Dean started making the V in 1977.

Hmmmm

[DoubleOhStephan]

33 minutes ago, Skinnyman said:

Interesting. The Flying V registration was filed in 1994. Dean started making the V in 1977.

Hmmmm

Its all a bit weird, can't see how Gibson have a case!? 

[prowla]

3 hours ago, DoubleOhStephan said:

Its all a bit weird, can't see how Gibson have a case!? 

Yup - if they hadn't protected it, it could be argued that they implicitly permitted it.

[Marvin]

On 21/06/2019 at 07:07, prowla said:

It's not about people thinking they're buying a Gibbo; it's about another company making things which look suspiciously similar.

For it to be trademark infringement, Gibson have to register their features as a trademark.

It's not sufficient for something to look like the original (that's copyright which is is different branch of law); for trademark it has to be registered, and in every country.

Normally companies register their brand logos, but some do more design features too; in particular Gibson registered their "bookend" headstock and successfully protected it a few decades back (the so-called "lawsuit").

Fender took a different approach to protecting the intellectual property (IP) and positioned the Squier brand to compete with the fakers.

 

Trademark Infringement and Trademark Counterfeit aren't the same thing.

[Stub Mandrel]

11 hours ago, Marvin said:

Trademark Infringement and Trademark Counterfeit aren't the same thing.

In the UK we have 'passing off' which is selling goods or services giving the customer the impression they are someone else's. I can't see Dean being copped for that, but the laws in the USA are different and I can't claim to understand their subtleties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

[prowla]

3 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

In the UK we have 'passing off' which is selling goods or services giving the customer the impression they are someone else's. I can't see Dean being copped for that, but the laws in the USA are different and I can't claim to understand their subtleties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

There's counterfeiting, which is passing off/misrepresenting an item as if it were from another manufacturer, and encompasses non-registered trademarks.

That's separate to straighforward infringement of registered trademarks (regardless of whether the finished product is pretending to be the genuine article) in 3rd party products.