Then Gibson should have done something in the 50s and not the late 90s about trademarking the "V" shape. Which by the way is as common as the color brown. Ask UPS how trying to grab legal ownership of the color brown worked out for them, it didn't.
The V shape applied to a guitar body is not common at all. Gibson invented it. The time they neglected to apply for trademark does not change this, and it doesn't change the fact that other companies copied their design and profited from it.
And by the way, your UPS example is a poor choice. UPS actually does have a trademark on their specific brown color; also note there are similar trademarks held by Fiskars on their orange handles, and 3M for yellow post-its. Note that these trademarks only apply to specific uses; you can make yellow things, just not yellow post-its. You can have a brown company logo, but not if you're in the shipping business. Similarly, Gibson doesn't have trademark on the letter V in general, but I think everybody knows that. But it's still great fun to make absurd arguments, I guess.
Variety in the V shape is not a dis service.
When multiple guitar bodies have the exact same shape, that is not "variety". Dean Vs look exactly like Gibson Vs. That's not "variety". It's arguable how much difference constitutes substantial variation. I'd say a Jackson Randy Rhodes style V is a design that is different enough.
How many P bass copies are out there?
Millions, I'd guess. Which has precisely nothing to do with whether or not it's
right to copy the design without permission. This only shows that the design was copied. A lot.
And how many of those led to someone becoming a bass player, then a better bass player, then eventually buying a Fender P?
Still has precisely nothing to do with whether or not it's
right to copy a design without permission. If Fender sees this as a valuable strategy for the overall benefit of their company, then they would grant this permission. But that is their choice as the owner of the design.
Oh, and Gibson owned Epiphone copied the P bass in the 80s and 90s. I own one. They didn't even bother trying a different pickguard shape or control layout. Changed the only thing Fender would sue them over, the headstock. How arrogant to think they can do it and no one else can.
Yeah, it is a form of arrogance to be hypocritical. Fender's loss of control over their body shape designs had already been established in court, and Gibson/Epiphone took advantage of that. But it's not illegal to be arrogant and hypocritical, and it doesn't remove their rights to attempt to enforce their trademarks.
And for the record, I absolutely do think Gibson was wrong to copy that design without permission, regardless of established case law.
Heck Gibson even discontinued the V on more than one occasion leaving those who wanted one to either buy used, or another brand
May be a questionable business move, but that's their right to do so. It still doesn't give others the right to copy their design without permission and profit from it. In fact, if you think about it, it's likely that Gibson stopped production because they were selling fewer Vs because of the copies. I doubt they stopped production of a profitable guitar line, but you never know.
Don't fault other guitar makers for Gibson being stupid in the legal dept in the 1950s. Or for copying Gibson's design when Gibson have copied others themselves.
Oh look, it's an Epicision...
Yeah, ever heard the saying, "two wrongs don't make a right"?
Three wrongs don't make a right, either.
Wrong #1)Gibson was stupid to not file trademarks in the '50s. But they got them in the 90's, and they haven't been revoked by any case law, so they stand. Doesn't mean they can't be challenged in court, dunno who'll win.
Wrong #2)Other companies have copied and profited from Gibson's stuff.
Wrong #3)Gibson has copied and profited from other companies' stuff.
So, yeah, it's still wrong to copy stuff. Break out a pencil and some paper and draw until you see something original and cool. Turn that into a guitar. Sell them.
)
