Gibson's landmark court victory changes the course of guitar building history

Xrocker

Xrocker

Fractal Fanatic
https://flip.it/YeHXGdGibson's landmark court victory changes the course of guitar building history

Once again the suits win. I can only imagine that Gibson will fall to even lower quality with less competition.
 
Not sure what the impact is (reading that article)?
Seems like they were just going after Dean (which sucks for Dean....but not sure how impactful that is to others?)
 
BBN said:
Not sure what the impact is (reading that article)?
Seems like they were just going after Dean (which sucks for Dean....but not sure how impactful that is to others?)
Click to expand...
It's the legal precedent, which is the bedrock of the American judicial system. This gives them the ammunition to go after pretty much any manufacturer that builds guitars that look like Gibsons.

I think Jackson is fine since the King V and Kelly are distinct enough, and the Monarkh has that god awful headstock. But there's a lot of gray area here, and the worry is that Gibson (who's been historically trigger-happy when it comes to litigation) now has the precedent to back up future lawsuits and actually win them.

I guarantee that Gibson actually doesn't care about Dean, specifically, rather they were the most tempting target. Dean's had a history of troubles, they just lost their CEO (apparently to an embezzlement scandal), and they recently were sued by the Dimebag estate, which... let's be real, Dime's the only reason that company is still on the map.
 
rossipedia said:
It's the legal precedent, which is the bedrock of the American judicial system. This gives them the ammunition to go after pretty much any manufacturer that builds guitars that look like Gibsons.

I think Jackson is fine since the King V and Kelly are distinct enough, and the Monarkh has that god awful headstock. But there's a lot of gray area here, and the worry is that Gibson (who's been historically trigger-happy when it comes to litigation) now has the precedent to back up future lawsuits and actually win them.

I guarantee that Gibson actually doesn't care about Dean, specifically, rather they were the most tempting target. Dean's had a history of troubles, they just lost their CEO (apparently to an embezzlement scandal), and they recently were sued by the Dimebag estate, which... let's be real, Dime's the only reason that company is still on the map.
Click to expand...
Glad I already own enough guitars then :)
 
BBN said:
Not sure what the impact is (reading that article)?
Seems like they were just going after Dean (which sucks for Dean....but not sure how impactful that is to others?)
Click to expand...
If nobody but Gibson can build guitars shaped much like a Les Paul, I'd say that's significant.

/notalawyer
 
Last edited:
Admin M@ said:
Without knowing the details, it seems like this is a reasonable enforcement of Gibson's trademarks of its unique designs.
Click to expand...
I agree, although I 100% agree with the original judgement that Gibson shouldn't have waited nearly 40 years to do so.

Dave Merrill said:
If nobody but Gibson can build guitars shaped much like Les Paul, I'd say that's significant.

/notalawyer
Click to expand...

Oh man if they make ESP stop making the Eclipse, there's gonna be trouble...
 
Gibson lost a similar case to this in the early 2000's against PRS. Not sure what this means for other companies really. Prior legal precedent seems to be irrelevant. They already issued a cease and desist to ESP years ago which resulted in them changing the lower horn, thickness, and control configuration of the Eclipse.
 
Dave Merrill said:
If nobody but Gibson can build guitars shaped much like Les Paul, I'd say that's significant.

/notalawyer
Click to expand...
(Also not a lawyer) but I'm not seeing that anywhere in the article.
As pointed out, they have gone after many companies before (Tom Anderson being one I remember). So Tom stopped making the Bulldog and came up with a slightly modified one.

And what about non-US companies? Are they required to adhere to US Court Rulings?
 
BBN said:
(Also not a lawyer) but I'm not seeing that anywhere in the article.
As pointed out, they have gone after many companies before (Tom Anderson being one I remember). So Tom stopped making the Bulldog and came up with a slightly modified one.

And what about non-US companies? Are they required to adhere to US Court Rulings?
Click to expand...
Don't believe so. Though, they've gone after them in court overseas. Gibson recently lost a case against Warwick/Framus (German company) over the Flying V.
 
BBN said:
And what about non-US companies? Are they required to adhere to US Court Rulings?
Click to expand...
It depends on whether their government has agreed to honor US intellectual laws.

Gibson has had their butts handed to them multiple times in court because they have not demonstrated due diligence in protecting their trademarks, and for not doing so without prejudice. It's significant in the court's eyes that EVERY infraction is addressed right away, not just the cases where some company seems to have more money that Gibson hopes they can get as an award.

IIRC, this particular case was about the Explorer-type body. Previously they tried to stop companies from using the single cutaway, but by the time they did it they couldn't prove they'd made a timely defense of their trademark, nor could they show they were not prejudiced. They finally got the scroll/open-book trademarked, which… REALLY!? They were lazy, and egotistical and thought they could push other companies around until they made a series of bad business decisions and lost a lot of money. Then they figured that suing others was a better idea. Fender did the same things and learned the same lessons.

Gibson needs to change their attitude. I used to have Les Pauls and ES-335 and 345 guitars but they make nothing now that entices me because they're resting on their laurels from yesteryear. I'd like to see them reduce their catalog, begin innovating, and forget this litigious attitude. Come up with some new designs that push the envelope in performance and sound and playability, and patent and trademark them every which way, then license the improvements. But they don't listen to me. Or us.
 
Are any of the folks mad at Gibson the same people who want to be able to encrypt their presets so they don't get "stolen"???

Hate the game, not the player. Don't you think any guitar maker would sue to enforce their IP if Gibson started copying it? Can't have it both ways.
 
ruso said:
If Gibson put as much effort into their quality control that they do with litigation, their products just might interest me.
Click to expand...
There definitely is a 'cashing in on the past' aspect here that is annoying.

Do airplane manufactures do this? "hey your plane can't have 2 wings, mine has 2 wings!!"
Just build a good product at a reasonable price and you would win the business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom