Are Gibson classifieds going to be banned?

[SubsonicSimpleton]

[BigRedX]

On 21/06/2019 at 10:08, 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

Personally I think the multitude of Fender and Squier ranges available are actually more confusing for potential customers, and while where in the world a musical instrument is actually made shouldn't make a difference, in practice it does, and the country of manufacture and the name on the headstock doesn't always equate to a given quality.

Add to this the fact that pretty much every other manufacturer has their own take on the P and J designs, again at a whole variety of price points, makes it even more confusing.

For all their faults, I admire the Rickenbacker approach. If you want a guitar or bass with Rickenbacker design, you need to buy a MIA Rickenbacker. There are no legal alternatives. It's nice and easy. If you want one and can't afford it, then you either make do with a different design that is cheaper, or you save until you can afford it.

[prowla]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

Personally I think the multitude of Fender and Squier ranges available are actually more confusing for potential customers, and while where in the world a musical instrument is actually made shouldn't make a difference, in practice it does, and the country of manufacture and the name on the headstock doesn't always equate to a given quality.

Add to this the fact that pretty much every other manufacturer has their own take on the P and J designs, again at a whole variety of price points, makes it even more confusing.

For all their faults, I admire the Rickenbacker approach. If you want a guitar or bass with Rickenbacker design, you need to buy a MIA Rickenbacker. There are no legal alternatives. It's nice and easy. If you want one and can't afford it, then you either make do with a different design that is cheaper, or you save until you can afford it.

The problem nowadays is that you cannot trust anything with "Fender" written on it, because people put logos on things left, right, and centre (including unscrupulous makers).

As it stands (apart from some niche craftsmen), there's never been a factory Ric bass copy which you couldn't tell.

 

 

[Nicko]

On 22/06/2019 at 10:28, 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. 

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.

 

2 hours ago, prowla said:

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.

I posted my original again as you seem to have failed to either read it or understand it.  US law requires there to be a possibility that the customer buying one product is actually buying a different product which is protected by registration.  If you dont believe me fine.

[Stub Mandrel]

4 hours ago, BigRedX said:

For all their faults, I admire the Rickenbacker approach. If you want a guitar or bass with Rickenbacker design, you need to buy a MIA Rickenbacker. There are no legal alternatives.

There is - buy a copy made before they trademarked the shape.

Rickenbacker may not like it, but it is legal. You can't make something retrospectively illegal all Rickenback can do legally is stop people selling them as copies.

[BigRedX]

2 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

There is - buy a copy made before they trademarked the shape.

Rickenbacker may not like it, but it is legal. You can't make something retrospectively illegal all Rickenback can do legally is stop people selling them as copies.

I suppose it depends what you are after if you want a Rickenbacker-shaped instrument. None of the copies I've played have felt or sounded like an actual Rickenbacker.

[totorbass]

About shape, in general they Don't have a 33,2677654 scale and 16,4575422455 string spacing at bridge and nut  either .

[prowla]

4 hours ago, Nicko said:

 

I posted my original again as you seem to have failed to either read it or understand it.  US law requires there to be a possibility that the customer buying one product is actually buying a different product which is protected by registration.  If you dont believe me fine.

That was a bit aggressive...

But actually I don't understand what you said there. 🙂

[prowla]

2 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

There is - buy a copy made before they trademarked the shape.

Rickenbacker may not like it, but it is legal. You can't make something retrospectively illegal all Rickenback can do legally is stop people selling them as copies.

I have 3 vintage fakers (2 Japanese, 1 Italian), which pre-date the trademarks, and have had a few more. The most difficult thing is trying to find their original TRCs! I think of them as historical fun (they're 40 years old).

2 hours ago, BigRedX said:

I suppose it depends what you are after if you want a Rickenbacker-shaped instrument. None of the copies I've played have felt or sounded like an actual Rickenbacker.

I think some people do.

I plan to make a bass which looks completely different but has all Ric parts on it. (I toyed with getting a headless one at one stage too!)

I've had one faker which sounded remarkably close. Here's a bit of naff unrehearsed noodling on one.

I've not had one which feels like a real Ric though. Not even my CMI 33.25 scale thru-neck one.

[stingrayPete1977]

3 hours ago, BigRedX said:

I suppose it depends what you are after if you want a Rickenbacker-shaped instrument. None of the copies I've played have felt or sounded like an actual Rickenbacker.

Decent basses then?! 

[stingrayPete1977]

I like how people always use Fender as an example of how Gibson and Rickenbacker should do business yet Fender have been in massive debt for years, most if not all of my life AFAIK! 

[Nicko]

14 hours ago, prowla said:

That was a bit aggressive...

But actually I don't understand what you said there. 🙂

Didn't mean to be aggressive.  The law I stated relates to registerd design and contains several tests to establish if infringement is present.  One of the tests is that the buyer of the goods could believe that the "copy" was in fact the genuine article.  If it can be demonstrated that the buyed will not intentionally or unintentionally choose the copy believing it is the real thing then infringement is not necessarily present. Therefore a Dean V with a V headstock is not infringing the Gibson V with a diamond headstock because the buyer would know the diffrenence, even though the Dean body shape might be close/identical to the Gibson registered shape.

[BigRedX]

1 minute ago, Nicko said:

Didn't mean to be aggressive.  The law I stated relates to registerd design and contains several tests to establish if infringement is present.  One of the tests is that the buyer of the goods could believe that the "copy" was in fact the genuine article.  If it can be demonstrated that the buyed will not intentionally or unintentionally choose the copy believing it is the real thing then infringement is not necessarily present. Therefore a Dean V with a V headstock is not infringing the Gibson V with a diamond headstock because the buyer would know the diffrenence, even though the Dean body shape might be close/identical to the Gibson registered shape.

And the fact that it says "Dean" rather than "Gibson" on the headstock.

[prowla]

1 hour ago, Nicko said:

Didn't mean to be aggressive.  The law I stated relates to registerd design and contains several tests to establish if infringement is present.  One of the tests is that the buyer of the goods could believe that the "copy" was in fact the genuine article.  If it can be demonstrated that the buyed will not intentionally or unintentionally choose the copy believing it is the real thing then infringement is not necessarily present. Therefore a Dean V with a V headstock is not infringing the Gibson V with a diamond headstock because the buyer would know the diffrenence, even though the Dean body shape might be close/identical to the Gibson registered shape.

🙂

Are you saying that if you don't pretend the item is a Gibson then it's all OK?

I took a look here at the Lanham Act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trademark_infringement

The element of "confusion" is interesting.

If you are using a company's trademarks then when does it become confusion?

The Gibson (and other brands) trademarks are more than just the company name, though, so if you produce an instrument which looks really like a Gibson Explorer, then it' doesn't matter what the name on the headstock is.

If I were to describe the Dean one as "an Explorer with a different headstock", would that demonstrate confusion?

It has the look of something drafted by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers...

I'm not an American, so I'm looking from the outside.

[Nicko]

2 minutes ago, prowla said:

If you are using a company's trademarks then when does it become confusion?

The Gibson (and other brands) trademarks are more than just the company name, though, so if you produce an instrument which looks really like a Gibson Explorer, then it' doesn't matter what the name on the headstock is.

Ths is why lawyers earn a lot of money.  In the case of Gibson lawsuits they were successful in the 70s in taking Japanese manufacturers to court for making what could only be described as copies.  The guitars were virtually identical, same dimensions, same headstock shape, the diamond inlays etc, and manufacturers were using similar scripts on the headstock even though they stopped shortt of actually writing "Gibson".  It would be argued that this was a clear attempt to decieve.

You cannot copy an Explorer and call it an Explorer.  Dean call ther V a "V", not a "Flying V" and their explorer an "Z" but more importanty the designs are very different with only the body shape being similar.  The tailpiece on the dean is v shaped through body strung unless its a Floyd model, there's no scratchplate and the headstock is a completely different shape.  Curiously the early Gibson Vs were through strung but then changed to the traditional tune-o-matic stop piece.  I'm not sure when production periods started and stopped but its probably worth mentioning that a large part of the demand for Vs and explorers is due to the use of those dsigns by ESP, Jackson and Dean which are associated with the thrash metal bands (ie the market is created by the "copies" not ed by Gibson).

The Dave Mustaine signature V looks less different, but the defence here woud be that anyone wanting a Dave Mustaine signature guitar would surely know that Dave doesn't play a Gibson - he's played pretty much everything else - BC Rich, Jackson, ESPs and Dean.

 

[Woodinblack]

On 21/06/2019 at 12:55, BigRedX said:

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.

Which means gibson would have difficulty competing as it would very hard to get less rigorous quality control!

[BigRedX]

26 minutes ago, Nicko said:

Ths is why lawyers earn a lot of money.  In the case of Gibson lawsuits they were successful in the 70s in taking Japanese manufacturers to court for making what could only be described as copies.  The guitars were virtually identical, same dimensions, same headstock shape, the diamond inlays etc, and manufacturers were using similar scripts on the headstock even though they stopped shortt of actually writing "Gibson".  It would be argued that this was a clear attempt to decieve.

AFAIK there weren't actually any "lawsuits". It was more of a "cease on desist" that was already out of date, as by the time it was issued the Japanese manufacturers had either:

1. Moved on to producing their own original designs.

2. Changed the design of their copies enough to avoid copyright/trademark infringement.

3. Stopped exporting their instruments.

[Nicko]

2 hours ago, BigRedX said:

AFAIK there weren't actually any "lawsuits". It was more of a "cease on desist" that was already out of date, as by the time it was issued the Japanese manufacturers had either:

1. Moved on to producing their own original designs.

2. Changed the design of their copies enough to avoid copyright/trademark infringement.

3. Stopped exporting their instruments.

You could wel be right - well before my time.

[Doctor J]

EU 1 - Gibson 0

 

http://bravewords.com/news/gibson-loses-flying-v-trademark-case-in-eu-general-court

[prowla]

3 hours ago, Doctor J said:

EU 1 - Gibson 0

 

http://bravewords.com/news/gibson-loses-flying-v-trademark-case-in-eu-general-court 

Maybe that's why the V isn't included in the Gibson trademarks page linked earlier.

[DoubleOhStephan]

35 minutes ago, prowla said:

Maybe that's why the V isn't included in the Gibson trademarks page linked earlier.

The V is in there, I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the they didn't trademark it until 2000/10ish and the shape has been being used since the 70s.

[lemmywinks]

On 15/06/2019 at 11:55, Delberthot said:

Didn't sales of Les Pauls soar after Appetite for Destruction was released despite the fact that Slash used copies of Les Pauls complete with Gibson Logo'd headstocks?

I don't think that Slash would have been able to afford the real thing at the time so surely it was good publicity for the Gibson brand despite not actually being a Gibson. Later on they did release a Gibson version of his copy which is, again, great for Gibson,despite them actually making a replica of a replica

Slash used a custom builder's guitar for that album - either a Max or a Derrig, not sure which and not sure those are the correct spellings either but AFAIK he owned Les Pauls from both builders. Apparently his real Gibson wouldn't stay in tune for studio work (presumably because it was Gibson quality through and through) and when you see old live pics of Slash from that era he's essentially using what would now be considered a masterbuilt guitar, like when you order one from Fender and it's ghost built by some master luthier who's well known in the industry but not to the general public. 

I think the first actual Gibson he used regularly was the amber quilt thingy so the GnR Les Paul association (and the re-emergence of the brand in general) is founded on copies built to a standard Gibson couldn't be relied upon to produce. Hopefully they'll publicise this extensively alongside their newfound stance on copies.

[prowla]

12 hours ago, DoubleOhStephan said:

The V is in there, I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the they didn't trademark it until 2000/10ish and the shape has been being used since the 70s.

Ah - I guess I missed it!

These companies do have an issue if other makers used the styling before they trademarked it.

It's the same with Ric and the 70s/80s Japanese (& Korean) copies.

[Doctor J]

Nasty Gibson were seemingly threatening shops which stocked Deans with legal action prior to them filing a suit against Dean themselves. That'll win them friends.

https://guitar.com/news/dean-seeks-trademark-cancellation-against-gibson-alleges-dealer-interference/

Edited July 11, 2019 by Doctor J

[Nicko]

14 hours ago, Doctor J said:

Nasty Gibson were seemingly threatening shops which stocked Deans with legal action prior to them filing a suit against Dean themselves. That'll win them friends.

https://guitar.com/news/dean-seeks-trademark-cancellation-against-gibson-alleges-dealer-interference/

Well, that will interest the Federal Trade Commission.  Suspicioulsy like anticompetitive action.