Gibson Sues Dean and Luna over Infringement

Pretty amazing considering how long Dean has been making these...all the way back to when Dean Zelinsky was still the owner of Dean in the mid 70’s

 

I don't see how Gibson can win on the headstock. And since a lot of these "infringements" have been going on for decades, I don't see how they can claim executive privilege now.

 

Agreed

 

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. They lost their case against PRS, but these cases against Luna and Dean may be using different patents, probably some more recent ones?

 

Articles
Gibson sues Dean Guitars over alleged trademark infringement

Gibson sues Dean Guitars, according to reports | MusicRadar

 

You’d think that a simpler business model would be preferable to suing ones competition.
Build a quality guitar at a fair price and provide good customer service.
Imo Gibson has its head up its own behind.
Again...

 

Welcome to the world of leveraged buyouts.

Young “J.C.” should look at where the former CEO of Toys r’Us ended up.

 

Anyone who thinks those two headstocks are similar enough for a legal battle needs some help. I do hope this all gets thrown out quickly given Gibson's failure to act for such a long time. Any course on IP will teach you that you have to be diligent in defending your IP claims from day one.

- John

 

Only 40 years later......

 

Who is next?
Dillion?
Ibanez?

 

Not in the East Texas district, John. See the Texas Monthly article about IP cases there... particularly the “Rocket Docket’.

 

I wonder if this is the plan to start making money.

Count me in the camp of those who think Gibson loses.

 

Welcome to modern corporation thinking.

Don't bother about your own products,threaten to sue any competition instead.

That's weak and pathetic in my book.

 

Gibson is no longer a musical instrument maker, but what we call in my industry a "patent troll". Since they can't make money on the merits of their product, they're going to simply start taking money from those who can.

Even thought they have lost - actual precedent - this same issue before, I think based on where they've filed suit (Eastern District of Texas) that they stand an excellent chance of winning the first round. And how many musical instrument manufacturers have the kind of pockets to appeal something like this?

I will NEVER purchase anything from Gibson or their associated companies again. I thought Henry J was as bad as they could get? Lack of imagination on my part, I guess.

 

Waco is gaining

The Newest Patent ‘Rocket-Docket’: Waco, Texas

 

They have legal standing to FILE the suit (notice, I said FILE, not WIN).

They will easily be able to argue that it was the LAST leadership that didn't defend the patents. This is the NEW leadership. And this leadership can't be held accountable to patent suits the LAST leadership did or did not file.

Whomever is running Ford Motor Company today can't be held responsible for any legal actions Henry did or did not take a zillion years ago. So, if someone can prove today that the Chevy Citation was a rip off of the Fox Body Mustang (they're both equally horrible) then they can file suit today even though Henry isn't around to care.

I'm not an attorney. Nor do I play one on TV. Nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

Sure, it's probably a bad PR move. But, then again, I don't think every manufacturer should be able to make an exact P bass or Les Paul copy either. If Chevy came out with a Mustang and called it the "M Car" you would all be rasing H E double over it. How many manufacturers today make a P bass with the letter P in the model # or a J bass with a J in the model #? Or how many call their Jazz bass a Shmazz Bass (or whatever)?

So, I think Gibson has the right to try. But it still might be bad PR.

A friend of mine has created a guitar gadget. He had to contact manufacturers about making it for him. He had to spend THOUSANDS on a patent to keep those manufacturers from just taking his idea. And hisnpatent attorney advised him that they could still change one tiny aspect of the design and fight you to the death over it. The attorney's exact words were "All you can do is roll the dice and hope for the best unless you can make 10,000 of these yourself."

 

What it does is put the industry on notice and stops any future infringements from happening I'm siding with Gibson on this one.

 

What infringement? You can’t freely share something for 40 years, let an industry develop around it, and then decide that it’s yours again. This is the worst sort of gotcha rent-seeking there is - it stifles innovation, forces everyone to allocate their profits into a legal piggy bank rather than back into product development, and sets a terrible precedent for the industry.

I will not spend another penny on Gibson (or affiliate) products.