Gibson strikes again!

[CryingBass]

A good trademark lawyer would tell you that if you want to have something trademarked, get it registered. And if Gibson did that, we could all search it in the public records. It takes proactive and ongoing effort, not reactive, to protect a trademark.

 

[Mantis Tobaggan]

If you want a boutique that looks like a Gibson, better hurry up!

 

[waveman]

I don't care much for Gibson basses, but I do like some of their guitars, and just got one from the guitar player in our band. However, I

If you want a boutique that looks like a Gibson, better hurry up!

Yeah, Heritage guitars come to mind. If I am not mistaken, they were started by ex-Gibson employees making a much better guitar than Gibson

 

[Clark W]

Gibson has profited over the decades by allowing other companies to ape their products, in that the importance of the Explorer, SG, and others to the evolution of the guitar is precisely what has enabled said designs to become iconic in the first place. Often, but now always, the moneyed player will gravitate towards the original brand. If I may mix metaphors, trying to put the genie back in the bottle all these years later strikes me as a case of having your cake and eating it too. Not a lawyer.

The genie got let out of the bottle a long, long time ago. And he doesn't want to get back in it

 

[Clark W]

I understand the idea of a headstock shape being accepted as a trademark. By using them over several models, they become a recognisable sign of the brand itself. The body shape, on the other hand, is the product itself, not a "Gibson" signature the way the bottle shape is a Coca-Cola signature. People want a guitar looking like a V the same way they want a drink tasting like Coke or a pair of trousers looking like jeans. That's not a trademark in my understanding. Of course, they really want it to look like the original, and that's where some "copyright" regulation ought to apply.

Yeah there's a fine line in there somewhere.

 

[43ManSquamish]

Gibson sues Reverend for the thundergun, then goes after dingwall and Sandberg for making better versions of their instruments, then sues Epiphone for the vintage pro and that point sues everyone else for taking a cut of their business by making musical instruments! This is a joke, but honestly I was expecting at least a step in the right direction from Gibson now. This all seems anything but...

In 1970, Dirk sued Stig, Nasty and Barry. Barry sued Dirk, Nasty and Stig. Nasty sued Barry, Dirk and Stig, and Stig sued himself, accidentally. It was the beginning of a golden era for lawyers. But for the Rutles, live on a London rooftop, it was the beginning of the end.

 

[43ManSquamish]

If Gibson is going after Reverend and other manufacturers for copyright infringement, then they'd better be prepared for a lawsuit from CBS/Paramount, who have lawyers known for eating other lawyers:

 

[40Hz]

If Gibson is going after Reverend and other manufacturers for copyright infringement, then they'd better be prepared for a lawsuit from CBS/Paramount, who have lawyers known for eating other lawyers:

View attachment 3458404

Five’ll get you ten they already had licensed it from Paramount.

 

[40Hz]

Yeah there's a fine line in there somewhere.

A trademark is what you have applied for or hold a trademark registration for.

Last I heard trademark protection isn’t automatic or enforceable (at least on the federal level - states can have their own trademark laws) unless it’s registered. This is the opposite of a copyright which is automatically granted by the act of creation and doesn’t need to be registered to be enforceable, although you’d be pretty stupid not to.

 

[Clark W]

A trademark is what you have applied for or hold a trademark registration for.

Last I heard trademark protection isn’t automatic or enforceable (at least on the federal level - states can have their own trademark laws) unless it’s registered. This is the opposite of a copyright which is automatically granted by the act of creation and doesn’t need to be registered to be enforceable, although you’d be pretty stupid not to.

Yeah, Gibson applied for a trademark for the Flying V in 1994. It was officially granted in 1997. 20 something years after Dean had started making Vs and 40+ years after Gibson first introduced the Flying V. I guess they figured better late than never. Not smart business wise at all.

 

[43ManSquamish]

Five’ll get you ten they already had licensed it from Paramount.

There's nothing I've seen that mentions this (of course, absence might not mean anything), and CBS/Paramount would demand a special logo if they approved of this.

A little more research shows that the Gibson design is closer to the Jackson Roswell Rhoads Flying V, which is owned by Fender.

 

[SirMjac28]

 

[40Hz]

Perhaps it’s about licensing - if Gibson can establish it’s trademarks, patents and/or copyrights in court, they can then negotiate licensing right to these various manufacturers. Some will probably negotiate before going to court.

For a company in bankruptcy, it seems smart and necessary.

It’s not a matter of establishing. They either hold a registration for a patent ir trademark or they don’t. Whether or not they conformed with the requirements to be able to enforce a trademark or not is the only thing they need to establish.

And FWIW, declaring you’re under new management now, and claiming the previous management was negligent about its old trademarks - but you won’t be if given another chance - isn’t going to change anything. Switching ownership or management doesn’t entitle a company to a “do over.”

 

[Diamond_Dave]

The average guitar-buying public has never heard of Reverend and doesn't care what Gibson does.

 

[MotorCityMinion]

Never knew. And who was the genius that discontinued the LP? That's insane.

I've seen or read that it was literally Les Paul who told them to stop using his name on it.

 

[ajkula66]

I've seen or read that it was literally Les Paul who told them to stop using his name on it.

No. That happened with the guitar that we now recognize as SG.. The original Les Paul series didn't sell as well as expected and that's why they were discontinued in late 1960.

 

[MultiScaleMale]

I don’t think Gibson would win this one in a lawsuit. However it costs a lot to go to court and I would wager that they’ve sold fewer than 100 Flying V reverend guitars. So, it’s easier to drop it than fight in court.

 

[MotorCityMinion]

That too..

 

[40Hz]

There's nothing I've seen that mentions this (of course, absence might not mean anything), and CBS/Paramount would demand a special logo if they approved of this.

A little more research shows that the Gibson design is closer to the Jackson Roswell Rhoads Flying V, which is owned by Fender.

View attachment 3458488

Interestingly enough, in Gibson’s own literature they pointedly say it “takes its inspiration” from their 1967 Flying V. And despite further flat out scifi references, there’s no mention of StarTrek at all. Hmm…

Possibly Paramount realized there would be a bigger battle pursuing it than it was worth and possibly losing in the process. So they negotiated one of those mutual non-aggression agreements trademark holders sometimes do where Gibson would agree to not make any scifi TV series or movies, and in exchange Paramount Pictures would agree not to build guitars.

Note: earlier version of this post has been edited to correct a major error in my part. Thx @43ManSquamish for catching it and bringing it to my attention.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Perhaps it’s about licensing - if Gibson can establish it’s trademarks, patents and/or copyrights in court, they can then negotiate licensing right to these various manufacturers. Some will probably negotiate before going to court.

For a company in bankruptcy, it seems smart and necessary.

Indeed, you're not going to get people to licence things if people aren't even sure if they need to. Putting the fear of legal god into small competitors may encourage them to sign even if not required. Whether that would affect future court cases I don't know, but mostly things go to out of court settlements. Even apple and Samsung do that on occasion and they can both afford expensive lawyers, so this isn't necessarily a big bucks opportunity for the legal profession.