Gibson strikes again!

[-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.

I've known many smart people who have done jury duty as they consider it civic minded to serve on one.

 

[blue4]

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.

The McDonald's case was far more then people have made it out to be. It wasn't just a spilled cup of coffee. I also never claimed lawsuits enhance responsibility, they merely help prevent seriously egregious and repeated violations. You don't think a company who loses a few hundred mil adjusts its behavior? Still no suggestion on who or what is going to rule fairly all the time on whether or not someone's headstock lawsuit is frivolous if we take it out of the court's hands.

 

[ajkula66]

The McDonald's case was far more then people have made it out to be. It wasn't just a spilled cup of coffee. I also never claimed lawsuits enhance responsibility, they merely help prevent seriously egregious and repeated violations. You don't think a company who loses a few hundred mil adjusts its behavior?

Absolutely not. Corporations are as caustic as they've ever been. They just pass the cost on to the consumer, adhere to a couple of meaningless givebacks and move on.

Still no suggestion on who or what is going to rule fairly all the time on whether or not someone's headstock lawsuit is frivolous if we take it out of the court's hands.

No court will rule fairly all the time, I never implied that there's a precedent of that nature to be found anywhere in the world.

As for the headstock lawsuit itself, I don't possess the legal knowledge required to mark it as frivolous or not.

 

[blue4]

As for the headstock lawsuit itself, I don't possess the legal knowledge required to mark it as frivolous or not

This is pretty much my point. There's always a lot of complaints about the legal process, but very few people understand it. I know I don't. But I don't always blame a lawyer. which is the knee jerk response, especially by many across the 4 or 5 threads going on Gibson in the last few days.

 

[Herrick]

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.

I can see why slang shouldn't be owned (how could it?) but why shouldn't guitar/bass shapes or songs be owned?

The McDonald's case was far more then people have made it out to be. It wasn't just a spilled cup of coffee.

Didn't it have something to do with that particular McDonald's heating the coffee to ridiculous levels in order to save money?

 

[user362432]

Lot of valuable info here. I hope, someone will link this tread to Dean so they can prepare for the case with facts.

 

[blue4]

Didn't it have something to do with that particular McDonald's heating the coffee to ridiculous levels in order to save money?

IIRC it was something like that.
Somehow it got turned into the frivolous case of the century.

 

[Dynacord]

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.

I almost certainly have an over-simplified view though I think one difference is in Europe, at least, in contrast to the US, it is common that the loser pays all the associated legal expenses of both sides (as opposed to in the US where one might 'win' and be bankrupted in the process, particularly when on defense). So one has to have a high level of confidence in their prospects and the merits of the case before filing suit - would certainly reduce frivolous suits. I'm sure there are exceptions and nuances to that both in the US and elsewhere.

 

[SteveCS]

The only thing that gets determined in court is who can afford court best.

Indeed. Who can tell the best yarn in the longest time...

 

[Mike Whitfield]

I can see why slang shouldn't be owned (how could it?) but why shouldn't guitar/bass shapes or songs be owned?

Didn't it have something to do with that particular McDonald's heating the coffee to ridiculous levels in order to save money?

It was all McDonald's I believe. Their policy (and why they keep winning awards for best coffee) is to keep it extremely hot, which apparently maximizes flavor and aroma and keeps coffee from developing that skunk flavor as it gets old. The elderly lady that spilled it in her lap actually had second degree burns requiring skin grafts. Honestly while I'm against frivolous lawsuits and think everyone should understand that hot coffee is HOT and therefore extreme caution should be used, I can also see some merit in the case, as no food product should ever be served so hot that it can cause second degree burns. However, it isn't completely cut and dried either way. Young children and elderly people have thinner skin which is more easily damaged.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

I've known many smart people who have done jury duty as they consider it civic minded to serve on one.

Yeah, that was just tongue in cheek. I've no problem with serving, although every time I've been called, my employer objected on grounds that I was essential personnel. Maybe if I ever get to retire.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

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?

That is my understanding as well. Another wrinkle is that Dean wasn't the first company to offer a V knockoff. Obviously Gibson isn't going to Kramer which they now own or Hamer (protected by Fender's legal muscle) but that makes suing Dean more difficult.

Adit: There's another defense here for Dean. When Gibson introduced the V and the Explorers, they were miserable failures, selling only a few dozen. (I think Wisebass pointed this out in one of these threads.) Gibson then abandoned both designs. It was only after Hamer, Kramer, Dean and some of the Japanese companies began producing and selling similar designs more than a decade later did Gibson re-introduce these models. Dean could make a very good case that the only reason Gibson has any sales of these models is because companies like Dean did a better job of building and marketing similar designs, allowing to piggyback on Dean's and Hamer's success.

 

[pcake]

Rember when Gibson and CBS Fender had let quality slide and the Japanese market took off on better quality copies? In fact the only "lawsuit" was against Ibanez for a Les Paul copy. Ibanez shook them off and launched the artist series which is still revered today.

Funny thing is both companies had to cannibalize subsidiaries to launch affordable instruments that still paled in comparison to the Japanese copies.

In this case, Gibson is kicking the boutique builders who make better Gibsons than...Gibsons. Heck, even PRS's mid level gives them a run for the money.

Gibson needs to worry about quality and integrity. Not setting up lawsuits on companies like Dean, who everyone knows (isn't supposed to be) in the arena as Gibson.

my husband's favorite guitar was a 1971 black beauty les paul until one night in sam ash he happened upon a lawsuit ibanez. after playing it for an hour, we ran home, grabbed a couple basses - one his and one mine - and rushed back to sam ash to trade them in, add a little cash and we went home with that ibanez.

and you know what? it sounds better to both of us than the les paul he had been playing for years. and the quality is really nice. the les paul he sold; the ibanez is sitting behind me and still gets frequent play time.

i do want to point out that the dean / gibson thing has been going on since 2017.

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.

people always bring up the mcdonald's lawsuit. in reality, that woman was truly injured and required skin grafts - it wasn't the frivolous lawsuit that most people refer to when they talk about it.
.

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"."

i read that already, and you know what? i still think there's no reason for gibson to bring their legal or business issues up when addressing us consumers. not in the original video, not in the statement you posted.

It was all McDonald's I believe. Their policy (and why they keep winning awards for best coffee) is to keep it extremely hot, which apparently maximizes flavor and aroma and keeps coffee from developing that skunk flavor as it gets old. The elderly lady that spilled it in her lap actually had second degree burns requiring skin grafts. Honestly while I'm against frivolous lawsuits and think everyone should understand that hot coffee is HOT and therefore extreme caution should be used, I can also see some merit in the case, as no food product should ever be served so hot that it can cause second degree burns. However, it isn't completely cut and dried either way. Young children and elderly people have thinner skin which is more easily damaged.

exactly. the poor woman - her lawsuit has become a scornful joke. most people who reference it reference it as if she weren't injured and required surgery.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

I almost certainly have an over-simplified view though I think one difference is in Europe, at least, in contrast to the US, it is common that the loser pays all the associated legal expenses of both sides (as opposed to in the US where one might 'win' and be bankrupted in the process, particularly when on defense). So one has to have a high level of confidence in their prospects and the merits of the case before filing suit - would certainly reduce frivolous suits. I'm sure there are exceptions and nuances to that both in the US and elsewhere.

I'm a big proponent of loser pays in intra-corporate lawsuits but I'm guessing that Luna's Hummingbird named guitar eliminates that avenue. Pretty sure they'd have to win on everything to get legal fees.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

my husband's favorite guitar was a 1971 black beauty les paul until one night in sam ash he happened upon a lawsuit ibanez. after playing it for an hour, we ran home, grabbed a couple basses - one his and one mine - and rushed back to sam ash to trade them in, add a little cash and we went home with that ibanez.

and you know what? it sounds better to both of us than the les paul he had been playing for years. and the quality is really nice. the les paul he sold; the ibanez is sitting behind me and still gets frequent play time.

i do want to point out that the dean / gibson thing has been going on since 2017.



people always bring up the mcdonald's lawsuit. in reality, that woman was truly injured and required skin grafts - it wasn't the frivolous lawsuit that most people refer to when they talk about it.
.


i read that already, and you know what? i still think there's no reason for gibson to bring their legal or business issues up when addressing us consumers. not in the original video, not in the statement you posted.



exactly. the poor woman - her lawsuit has become a scornful joke. most people who reference it reference it as if she weren't injured and required surgery.

Yeah, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect food or drink to be served at temperatures that won't require hospitalization.

 

[Raw N Low]

my husband's favorite guitar was a 1971 black beauty les paul until one night in sam ash he happened upon a lawsuit ibanez. after playing it for an hour, we ran home, grabbed a couple basses - one his and one mine - and rushed back to sam ash to trade them in, add a little cash and we went home with that ibanez.

and you know what? it sounds better to both of us than the les paul he had been playing for years. and the quality is really nice. the les paul he sold; the ibanez is sitting behind me and still gets frequent play time.

i do want to point out that the dean / gibson thing has been going on since 2017.

What's striking to me is that the Ibanez copies were much more than just copies. They really strived to build something with quality and make improvements within their cost benchmarks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just giving Gibson some crap for the heck of it. I've owned three (Epiphones) in the past and I want them to succeed as a company. I'm also very critical of Fender and raise an eyebrow or two when they goof up. Heck, I even own a few Fender copies that were produced by Ibanez and the quality is outstanding.

Sad that we live in a world that calls a product "boutique" when it's done right. Sometimes builders are pushing the envelope on older technology and charging 4x more.

 

[ajkula66]

people always bring up the mcdonald's lawsuit. in reality, that woman was truly injured and required skin grafts - it wasn't the frivolous lawsuit that most people refer to when they talk about it

exactly. the poor woman - her lawsuit has become a scornful joke. most people who reference it reference it as if she weren't injured and required surgery.

Being a strong advocate of personal responsibility, I couldn't phrase my opinion any better than the judge who dismissed a similar case in the UK, emphasis mine

Judge Field of the Queen's Bench wrote: "If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C [149 °F] will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald's were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. [131–140 °F] But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. [185–203 °F] Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled.

 

[SteveCS]

Being a strong advocate of personal responsibility, I couldn't phrase my opinion any better than the judge who dismissed a similar case in the UK, emphasis mine

Judge Field of the Queen's Bench wrote: "If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C [149 °F] will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald's were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. [131–140 °F] But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. [185–203 °F] Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled.

In addition, I'm not aware of any feature of any commercially available electric guitar that, when used for it's intended purposes, can cause actual bodily harm...

And even if such a feature did exist, if it's shape was intrisically linked to the function, it could not be trademarked.

There is no comparing McDonalds and Gibson. McDonalds is not relevant.

 

[pcake]

Being a strong advocate of personal responsibility, I couldn't phrase my opinion any better than the judge who dismissed a similar case in the UK, emphasis mine

Judge Field of the Queen's Bench wrote: "If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C [149 °F] will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald's were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. [131–140 °F] But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. [185–203 °F] Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled.

scalding meaning "extremely hot, burning, blistering, searing, red-hot".

so people with poor manual dexterity, vision issues, poor grip should pay for their own skin grafts (which virtually no one in the u.s. could afford to do) if they are truly injured by coffee that is hotter than many coffee machines will keep it at all? which is, of course, something that they wouldn't expect. most restaurants don't keep their coffee that hot because they want their customers to be able to drink it without blisters. mcdonalds, in fact, now keeps it cooler and it's still plenty hot, not merely warm.

there is no reason to keep coffee that hot. there is no reason anyone with experiences with coffee makers at home, the office or doctor's office or coffee from other restaurants would expect it to be that hot.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

scalding meaning "extremely hot, burning, blistering, searing, red-hot".

so people with poor manual dexterity, vision issues, poor grip should pay for their own skin grafts (which virtually no one in the u.s. could afford to do) if they are truly injured by coffee that is hotter than many coffee machines will keep it at all? which is, of course, something that they wouldn't expect. most restaurants don't keep their coffee that hot because they want their customers to be able to drink it without blisters. mcdonalds, in fact, now keeps it cooler and it's still plenty hot, not merely warm.

there is no reason to keep coffee that hot. there is no reason anyone with experiences with coffee makers at home, the office or doctor's office or coffee from other restaurants would expect it to be that hot.

At the very least, such hot coffee should be kept out of the drive through, where one is strapped in with little opportunity to move away from the spilled coffee or reduce skin contact with the saturated clothing. One can brew coffee or tea at an appropriately high temperature without necessarily serving at an unsafe temperature. Although as SteveCS points out, this really cannot be connected to instruments, let alone these lawsuits, so we've gone rather far afield of the relevant subject.