• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Gibson Sues Dean and Luna over Infringement

W

Williethump

Guest
Sep 10, 2017
1,030
1,770
#1
From guitar.com:
After posting and then deleting a video threatening lawsuits against other instrument manufacturers, Gibson has followed through, suing Dean and Luna for copyright infringement-despite push-back from musicians.
From the video: "You have been warned, we're looking out and we're here to protect our iconic legacy."
From Guitar.com News:
Among other allegations, Gibson is accusing Armadillo, which also owns drum maker Ddrum, of running afoul of seven of its trademarks. These include the body shape design of the Flying V, Explorer, ES and SG, as well as the 'Dove Wing' headstock design, the 'Hummingbird' name and the 'Moderne' trademark.
Gibson has not vigorously defended its trademark for some time so this might not go so well in court.
Looking at some supposed infringement such as headstock contours, some don't look that close in shape to my eye. But then I am not a bloodsucking lawyer and am close to Shakespeare's feelings toward them.
What do you think?
Screenshot_2019-06-20-08-47-05.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: iceboxbass, Yves Lavoie, Bass_Frequency and 7 others
#2
Williethump said:
From guitar.com:
After posting and then deleting a video threatening lawsuits against other instrument manufacturers, Gibson has followed through, suing Dean and Luna for copyright infringement-despite push-back from musicians.
From the video: "You have been warned, we're looking out and we're here to protect our iconic legacy."
From Guitar.com News:
Among other allegations, Gibson is accusing Armadillo, which also owns drum maker Ddrum, of running afoul of seven of its trademarks. These include the body shape design of the Flying V, Explorer, ES and SG, as well as the 'Dove Wing' headstock design, the 'Hummingbird' name and the 'Moderne' trademark.
Gibson has not vigorously defended its trademark for some time so this might not go so well in court.
Looking at some supposed infringement such as headstock contours, some don't look that close in shape to my eye. But then I am not a bloodsucking lawyer and am close to Shakespeare's feelings toward them.
What do you think?
View attachment 3450983
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dave Neal, GonePlaid, wmmj and 12 others
#10
JKos said:
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
Click to expand...
Only 40 years later......
 
  • Like
Reactions: nozkcb, GonePlaid, Jeff Scott and 4 others
#12
JKos said:
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
Click to expand...
Not in the East Texas district, John. See the Texas Monthly article about IP cases there... particularly the "Rocket Docket'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GonePlaid, younkint, tw63 and 3 others
#13
Lesfunk said:
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...
Click to expand...

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

Count me in the camp of those who think Gibson loses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nozkcb, GonePlaid, zubrycky and 9 others
#15
Williethump said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thatbassguyrob, Artman, jackAbrasion and 35 others
#18
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."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Novarocker, MarkJC8, BDrums and 15 others
#20
SirMjac28 said:
What it does is put the industry on notice and stops any future infringements from happening I'm siding with Gibson on this one.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RichT, Artman, jackAbrasion and 29 others

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back