Gibson strikes again!

[Jeff Scott]

These shapes weren't "developed". They just happened to catch on for some uncontrolled reason, most of it being habit. It's like singing someone else's song or taking on a particular slang. It shouldn't be owned by anyone.

Someone actually spent time (how much time is irrelevant, here) in coming up with these shapes and designs, so yes, there are trademark issues here. If said designer/company does not enforce the protection of their designs, then it passes into the public arena.

 

[Wood and Wire]

Yeah, maybe time for a possible name change, but not seeing a need for discontinuing the model. Unlike the Volcano, the shape of which Rev (and others) have copied. Rev apparently decided to build a flying V guitar, but avoid giving it a name using any words involving or describing "Flying" or "V". Best not to "fly too close to the sun" with shape, layout, AND name, eh?

Less flying-V, and more "flicking the V's".

 

[blue4]

One universal thing across all the Gibson threads is the belief that the entire legal system is broken. Most people I've met share that belief. They don't like lawyers, judges, juries, court employees, etc. But never in 44 years have I ever heard a single person come up with a better or more workable REALISTIC idea. We don't like frivolous lawsuits but without the lawsuit what little corporate responsibility we have would be gone. Unfortunately wasteful lawsuits like this Gibson one is a byproduct of that, much like Joe in the office abusing the FMLA system. Sure he's getting by, but do we really want to go without that system in place for us? IDK I'll stop with the idle musings now...

 

[ajkula66]

But never in 44 years have I ever heard a single person come up with a better or more workable REALISTIC idea. We don't like frivolous lawsuits but without the lawsuit what little corporate responsibility we have would be gone.

It's far more difficult to file a frivolous lawsuit elsewhere in the civilized world. The idea that one can spill coffee on themselves and then sue McDonalds or whoever else is mind-blowing to say the very least. And stuff like this has done absolutely nothing to enhance corporate responsibility IMO.

 

[fdeck]

It's far more difficult to file a frivolous lawsuit elsewhere in the civilized world. The idea that one can spill coffee on themselves and then sue McDonalds or whoever else is mind-blowing to say the very least. And stuff like this has done absolutely nothing to enhance corporate responsibility IMO.

Elsewhere in the civilized world, discipline is imposed on corporations through more extensive regulation, so basically regulation takes the place of litigation.

Note that anybody can sue anybody anywhere, it's the job of the courts to dismiss frivolous suits.

 

[ajkula66]

Note that anybody can sue anybody anywhere, it's the job of the courts to dismiss frivolous suits.

Thank you for making my point for me...

 

[Wisebass]

Hi Jeff

Someone actually spent time (how much time is irrelevant, here) in coming up with these shapes and designs, so yes, there are trademark issues here. If said designer/company does not enforce the protection of their designs, then it passes into the public arena.

1+

Let me try to tell the same thing a bit longer. (with some background)


Gibson (Ted McCarty) designed the Explorer and the Flying V in 1957.

They sold less than 50 of each model until 1959, when they stopped to produce them.

No wonder they didn' t care about trademarks or patents. Those models were a huge flop!

Not much to defend!

The Flying V was reintroduced in 1967 and the the Explorer had to wait even longer for a comeback (1976)


A little bit of TB sarcasm:

In the meantime, others started to use these designs that were not protected

The first Flying V bass ever (yes we are Talkbass, not Talkguitar) was not built by Gibson!!!

It was built 1974!!! by a small boutique shop "Northern Prairie Music", which became Hamer Guitars!

The same year, they also built the Hamer "Standard" wich was a boutique version of the Explorer.

In 1974 the Gibson Explorer (1957- 59) was one of the rarest guitars on earth! (still is)

Only a few people had seen one in person and even less had ever played one!


Gibson reacted instantly to this threat, reintroduced the Explorer (in 1976! )

and launched a Flying V bass (in 1981! flooding the market with 375! of them).


When Gibson claims, that these designs are their designs. They are right!

They have the right to tell that! (IMO) Even when the copies are better!

But a trademark?

A trademark is something you need to promote your brand (like the Coka Cola bottle)

which means (IMO) that you actually use this design! (all the time)

Which Gibson never did!


btw: You may ask, why Gibson sues Dean and not Hamer?

Well, what is left of Hamer, is owned by Fender!


may the bass be with you

Wise(b)ass

 

[Dynacord]

Just got this via Michael Molenda (former editor in chief at Guitar Player Magazine)


"Gibson Pivots From Confrontation To Collaboration

In The Process Of Re-building Over The Past Eight Months, Gibson Has Made Significant Progress And Now Takes On The Challenge Of Balancing Brand Protection With Music Industry Collaboration
(NASHVILLE, TN, Monday, July 1, 2019) Since emerging from bankruptcy less than a year ago, Gibson has made significant progress in the key areas that matter most to guitarists around the world. With a clear focus on quality , a new collection of Original and Modern guitars , and a more confident Dealer and Artist base , the new team at Gibson have proven they can listen to the market to create new solutions. But there is still more work to be done and the new team at Gibson remain on a mission.

While new management is building on the legacy, quality and craftsmanship that guitarists have come to love and expect from Gibson , they will also continue to manage and attempt to resolve the conflicts of the past .

Apart from inheriting an iconic brand, the team have also inherited a host of challenges that they realized would take time to achieve proper resolution. A clear challenge has been in the area of brand protection, where a legacy of legal issues exist with both legitimate companies in the industry infringing on iconic trademarks and with illegitimate entities attempting to counterfeit, 'knock-off' and pretend to be Gibson in the market.

Over the past eight months, the team have successfully dealt with over 4,500 counterfeit and 'knock-off' guitars coming from overseas that were clearly designed to confuse the consumer into thinking they were buying a real Gibson . Since November (2018), there have been dozens of counterfeit website 'take-downs,' also designed to confuse the guitarist into thinking they were entering a legitimate, official website. On a weekly basis, Gibson receives multiple queries and concerns from guitarists mislead into purchasing what they thought was a genuine Gibson that turned out to be counterfeit. Unfortunately, this is a very real dynamic that brands, like Gibson and other iconic brands, need to deal with on a regular basis. The main area of brand protection on these types of issues is with trademark ownership, understanding, and assertion. Hence our recent attempts to communicate our position, which was predominantly focused on these rogue overseas players in the market. If left unchecked, these situations can lead to continued consumer confusion and can ultimately affect the integrity of an entire industry .

Recently, there has been a wide spectrum of both support and criticism with the approach that has been taken by Gibson in the market regarding brand protection. While there are clear lessons to be learned around tone and legal explanations, the past few weeks have provided a 'real time' opportunity for Gibson to start making the pivot from less legal leverage to more industry collaboration , with appropriate levels of awareness.

With regards to other guitar brands and companies in the marketplace, Gibson has filed specific lawsuits over the past several years with the intention of protecting its original trademark(s) rights and to avoid consumer confusion in the market . All of the recent attention on the few lawsuits in process stem from several years of legal action initiated well before the new leadership arrived in November of 2018 . With specific regards to the inherited and ongoing legal dynamic with Dean Guitars, the new Gibson team have made several attempts to communicate with them directly to avoid a prolonged legal battle . Gibson has genuine intentions of constructive resolution that could be beneficial to both sides.

This recent situation has led the team to re-evaluate their approach going forward with the intention of finding more constructive solutions to managing brand protection in the industry . Over the past few weeks Gibson has made significant progress in reducing counterfeit 'attacks' and they have entered into creative collaboration agreements with key boutique guitar makers and other related industry parties . A clear indication of their intentions going forward.

"I am proud of the progress we have made with our attention to quality, with the launch of the new collections, and with our renewed engagement to our Gibson authorized dealer base. At the same time, we acknowledge there are still legacy challenges to solve going forward, especially around brand protection and market solutions," says James 'JC' Curleigh , the new President and CEO of Gibson . "It is time to make the modern-day shift from confrontation towards collaboration, whilst still protecting our brands, and we are committed to making this happen starting now"."

 

[Koshchei]

Just got this via Michael Molenda (former editor in chief at Guitar Player Magazine)


"Gibson Pivots From Confrontation To Collaboration

In The Process Of Re-building Over The Past Eight Months, Gibson Has Made Significant Progress And Now Takes On The Challenge Of Balancing Brand Protection With Music Industry Collaboration
(NASHVILLE, TN, Monday, July 1, 2019) Since emerging from bankruptcy less than a year ago, Gibson has made significant progress in the key areas that matter most to guitarists around the world. With a clear focus on quality , a new collection of Original and Modern guitars , and a more confident Dealer and Artist base , the new team at Gibson have proven they can listen to the market to create new solutions. But there is still more work to be done and the new team at Gibson remain on a mission.

While new management is building on the legacy, quality and craftsmanship that guitarists have come to love and expect from Gibson , they will also continue to manage and attempt to resolve the conflicts of the past .

Apart from inheriting an iconic brand, the team have also inherited a host of challenges that they realized would take time to achieve proper resolution. A clear challenge has been in the area of brand protection, where a legacy of legal issues exist with both legitimate companies in the industry infringing on iconic trademarks and with illegitimate entities attempting to counterfeit, 'knock-off' and pretend to be Gibson in the market.

Over the past eight months, the team have successfully dealt with over 4,500 counterfeit and 'knock-off' guitars coming from overseas that were clearly designed to confuse the consumer into thinking they were buying a real Gibson . Since November (2018), there have been dozens of counterfeit website 'take-downs,' also designed to confuse the guitarist into thinking they were entering a legitimate, official website. On a weekly basis, Gibson receives multiple queries and concerns from guitarists mislead into purchasing what they thought was a genuine Gibson that turned out to be counterfeit. Unfortunately, this is a very real dynamic that brands, like Gibson and other iconic brands, need to deal with on a regular basis. The main area of brand protection on these types of issues is with trademark ownership, understanding, and assertion. Hence our recent attempts to communicate our position, which was predominantly focused on these rogue overseas players in the market. If left unchecked, these situations can lead to continued consumer confusion and can ultimately affect the integrity of an entire industry .

Recently, there has been a wide spectrum of both support and criticism with the approach that has been taken by Gibson in the market regarding brand protection. While there are clear lessons to be learned around tone and legal explanations, the past few weeks have provided a 'real time' opportunity for Gibson to start making the pivot from less legal leverage to more industry collaboration , with appropriate levels of awareness.

With regards to other guitar brands and companies in the marketplace, Gibson has filed specific lawsuits over the past several years with the intention of protecting its original trademark(s) rights and to avoid consumer confusion in the market . All of the recent attention on the few lawsuits in process stem from several years of legal action initiated well before the new leadership arrived in November of 2018 . With specific regards to the inherited and ongoing legal dynamic with Dean Guitars, the new Gibson team have made several attempts to communicate with them directly to avoid a prolonged legal battle . Gibson has genuine intentions of constructive resolution that could be beneficial to both sides.

This recent situation has led the team to re-evaluate their approach going forward with the intention of finding more constructive solutions to managing brand protection in the industry . Over the past few weeks Gibson has made significant progress in reducing counterfeit 'attacks' and they have entered into creative collaboration agreements with key boutique guitar makers and other related industry parties . A clear indication of their intentions going forward.

"I am proud of the progress we have made with our attention to quality, with the launch of the new collections, and with our renewed engagement to our Gibson authorized dealer base. At the same time, we acknowledge there are still legacy challenges to solve going forward, especially around brand protection and market solutions," says James 'JC' Curleigh , the new President and CEO of Gibson . "It is time to make the modern-day shift from confrontation towards collaboration, whilst still protecting our brands, and we are committed to making this happen starting now"."

JC needs to lay off the alternative facts and marketing weasel words:

If we choose to redefine "collaboration" to mean the same thing as "confrontation", then yes, Gibson's tactics could be described as "proactively and assertively collaborating with Dean Guitars and other strategic partners".

If we choose to redefine "trying to sink a boat that sailed 60 years ago" as "legacy challenges" and "brand" as "whatever we say it is", then Gibson's strategy could be thought of as "brand protection and market solutions".

But they aren't. Strip away the ********, and we're left with what we had yesterday: Gibson is playing scorched earth with the instrument manufacturing industry by suing everyone and everything using variations of designs that they failed to protect over the last 40 years. No amount of snake-charming is going to change that.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Looks like Gibson lost its appeal for a patent on the flying V in the EU. They basically said that Gibson applied for it 60 years too late.

Invalid Link Removed

That's trademark not patent. Patents are limited to twenty years anyway.

 

[callofcthulhu]

One universal thing across all the Gibson threads is the belief that the entire legal system is broken. Most people I've met share that belief. They don't like lawyers, judges, juries, court employees, etc. But never in 44 years have I ever heard a single person come up with a better or more workable REALISTIC idea. We don't like frivolous lawsuits but without the lawsuit what little corporate responsibility we have would be gone. Unfortunately wasteful lawsuits like this Gibson one is a byproduct of that, much like Joe in the office abusing the FMLA system. Sure he's getting by, but do we really want to go without that system in place for us? IDK I'll stop with the idle musings now...

 

[Mike Whitfield]

JC needs to lay off the alternative facts and marketing weasel words:

If we choose to redefine "collaboration" to mean the same thing as "confrontation", then yes, Gibson's tactics could be described as "proactively and assertively collaborating with Dean Guitars and other strategic partners".

If we choose to redefine "trying to sink a boat that sailed 60 years ago" as "legacy challenges" and "brand" as "whatever we say it is", then Gibson's strategy could be thought of as "brand protection and market solutions".

But they aren't. Strip away the ********, and we're left with what we had yesterday: Gibson is playing scorched earth with the instrument manufacturing industry by suing everyone and everything using variations of designs that they failed to protect over the last 40 years. No amount of snake-charming is going to change that.

Exactly. Demanding that companies pay Gibson money to produce similar products isn't "collaboration", it's simply "confrontation" combined with "extortion".

On the other hand, I completely agree with Gibson on going after companies making identical products and sometimes even putting "Gibson" on the headstock. That's a true counterfeit and deserves to be crushed. It leads to people saying they once owned or played a Gibson and it was crap when in reality they played/owned a cheap counterfeit.

 

[Dynacord]

JC needs to lay off the alternative facts and marketing weasel words:

If we choose to redefine "collaboration" to mean the same thing as "confrontation", then yes, Gibson's tactics could be described as "proactively and assertively collaborating with Dean Guitars and other strategic partners".

If we choose to redefine "trying to sink a boat that sailed 60 years ago" as "legacy challenges" and "brand" as "whatever we say it is", then Gibson's strategy could be thought of as "brand protection and market solutions".

But they aren't. Strip away the ********, and we're left with what we had yesterday: Gibson is playing scorched earth with the instrument manufacturing industry by suing everyone and everything using variations of designs that they failed to protect over the last 40 years. No amount of snake-charming is going to change that.

Sort of get the feeling the PR didn't play out quite like they expected...

 

[Jeff Scott]

Is it too soon to start discussing the pre-"collaboration" era vs. the post-"collaboration" one?

 

[Johnston]

I wonder how much of this 'turnaround' is due to the EU case and a realisation that they might lose the US case too rather than a genuine 'we dun goofed'

 

[Mike Whitfield]

I wonder how much of this 'turnaround' is due to the EU case and a realisation that they might lose the US case too rather than a genuine 'we dun goofed'

I've no doubt that Gibson would prefer getting money from Dean et al to them ceasing production, as there likely aren't many people trying to decide whether to buy a Gibson or a Dean. Still, it's not "collaboration". Except in the way the Mafia might use the term.

 

[Wisebass]

Hi David

pretend to be Gibson in the market

sorry but honestly :Who would ever do that?

focused on these rogue overseas players in the market

...rogue overseas players (Warwick?)

On a weekly basis, Gibson receives multiple queries and concerns from guitarists mislead into purchasing what they thought was a genuine Gibson that turned out to be counterfeit.

It' s easy today to fake a Gibson! Just build a guitar with flaws and ask $5000 for it!

When I was a boy the Gibson on the wall was not only the most expensive guitar!

Recently, there has been a wide spectrum of both support and criticism with the approach that has been taken by Gibson in the market regarding brand protection.

Support? They lost me right here!

clear lessons to be learned around tone and legal explanations

see above!

This recent situation has led the team to re-evaluate their approach going forward with the intention of finding more constructive solutions to managing brand protection in the industry

So what happens to Marc? The only guy in the new management who loves guitars. (poor crash test dummy)

says James 'JC' Curleigh , the new President and CEO of Gibson .

still protecting our brands

We are all waiting for some flying V cut jeans! I am sure you have that trademark!

end of rant

back to David. Thx for posting

Wise(b)ass

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Exactly. Demanding that companies pay Gibson money to produce similar products isn't "collaboration", it's simply "confrontation" combined with "extortion".

On the other hand, I completely agree with Gibson on going after companies making identical products and sometimes even putting "Gibson" on the headstock. That's a true counterfeit and deserves to be crushed. It leads to people saying they once owned or played a Gibson and it was crap when in reality they played/owned a cheap counterfeit.

If intellectual property wasn't defended at the appropriate point in time and it doesn't say Gibson I'm not convinced Gibson has much of a case. Stable door, etc

 

[Mike Whitfield]

If intellectual property wasn't defended at the appropriate point in time and it doesn't say Gibson I'm not convinced Gibson has much of a case. Stable door, etc

They would with the exact Gibson head stock shape combined with an exact copy of a Les Paul (or SG, or 335) body, I think. That head stock has been in use pretty much since they stole it from Martin. But I agree that it could go either way, especially with a jury of twelve people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

They would with the exact Gibson head stock shape combined with an exact copy of a Les Paul (or SG, or 335) body, I think. That head stock has been in use pretty much since they stole it from Martin. But I agree that it could go either way, especially with a jury of twelve people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

If there was infringement, assuming the element counts as a trademark, and you don't defend within a reasonable time of knowing then AFAIK the trademark is forfeit. When did Dean start making Gibsoneque guitars, when did Gibson know, when did it take action?