I Wish Gibson would F*#k off with this crap

metropolis_4 said:
The basis they have for asserting their Trademark is because it's their Trademark. It's their creation, their IP, and they have a legal right to protect that.
Click to expand...
"To prevail on a claim of trademark infringement, a plaintiff must establish that it has a valid mark entitled to protection; and that the defendant used the same or a similar mark in commerce in connection with the sale or advertising of goods or services without the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff must also show that defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause confusion as to the affiliation, connection or association of defendant with plaintiff, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of defendant's goods, services or commercial activities by plaintiff. See 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005). Thus, "use," "in commerce," and "likelihood of confusion" are three distinct elements necessary to establish a trademark infringement claim. "

www.law.cornell.edu

trademark infringement

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

if there is no market confusion, there is no trademark infringement.
 
7y930a.jpg
 
Boudoir Guitar said:
Absolutely!! It is the very definition of the rights afforded to a holder of intellectual property rights!! The usual theory in copyright and patent is "By offering a monopoly as a carrot, we will inspire folks to innovate and share their innovation with the world (see the inception of IP rights in America dating back to Thomas Jefferson). Never have I heard anyone argue that the monopoly right itself is a good thing because it inspires people to innovate.

Trademark (the only thing Gibson is relying on in these cases) is consumer-centric, not rights-holder-centric. We offer trademark protections specifically to protect consumers from buying Chibsons labeled as Gibsons.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Ian Williams of Nepco guitars sees it as inspiration to innovate:

“The silver lining to the situation is that I’m being forced to do other things,” says Williams. “I’m excited to try a few new body styles and see what ideas seem to grab people’s attention.”
Click to expand...

:idk
 
metropolis_4 said:
Sounds like Ian Williams of Nepco guitars sees it as inspiration to innovate:



:idk
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Sounds like they already had some additional innovation in the pipeline that they're going to fast track.

Also, of course the existence of the monopolies that IP law establishes lead to innovation -- patents often lead to design around products, some of which might actually be better than the ones that came before. BUT, they aren't a justification for some, as Gibson has been doing all day long lately, attempting to expand the scope of the actual monopoly right that they likely have.

The key in all of this is the scope of Gibosn's monopoly right can only be tested in court. There is no black-line test for whether a V-shaped guitar is sufficiently different to not infringe their trademark or not. We do have one case where it was decided: PRS single cut was not found likely to confuse customers because customers were found to be sophisticated enough to tell a PRS apart from a Gibson LP, hanging on a wall in a music store, even from some distance. Despite that loss, Gibson has gone on to send letters to folks that are making guitars, like this danelectro V, that differs even more from the asserted mark than a PRS single cut does from an LP. They are not "protecting their IP right", they are using the threat of lawsuit over the tenuous existence of a trademark right against folks knowing that the threat alone will be enough to get them to give Gibson a wider berth than Gibson should be legally afforded because nobody wants to pay a lawyer .
 
metropolis_4 said:
I'm just mad that I only discovered how much I love their guitars right before prices went through the roof o_O

I want another LP Standard so bad but there's no way I'm paying $2,999 for any electric guitar
Click to expand...
(if they weren't paying attorneys to send cease and desist letters at a cost of $250/hr to every tom dick and harry, competitor or not, it might cost closer to $2700.)
 
duzie said:
The resale market for the Dean Schenker V guitar has gone through the roof 😔
Click to expand...
I tell you what; that is probably my favorite take on the Gibby V headstock. Despite them being definitely an acquired taste? plus, well; Schenker. Duh :chef
 
While I dislike Gibson's legal practices, I will note that it is cool that you can still buy a Les Paul today, that is built pretty darn similarly to how a Les Paul was made in 1959. That's not Rock and Roll necessarily. But it is cool.

I think Gibson would fare better in every way by embracing how much they are copied, and instead of sending this dude a cease and desist letter, instead make a cool video celebrating how the Flying V has gone on to inspire so many others. Same thing with Dean. The likelihood that those brands are stealing significant marketshare from Gibson is...low. So why are Gibson sending the cease and desist letters? Is it because they think keeping tweaked copies off the market adds cache to their Flying V? Is it because they are genuinely worried about genericide (doubtful). Even if the latter, send a letter saying "hey, we'd like to feature you in a little video we are making where we celebrate the Flying V and everyone that its inspired. We'll gladly give you a license to the body shape in exchange for being a part of that." And for any folks that come along later "Hey, we love how inspired you were by the Gibson Flying V!! We would love to extend a license to you to use the body shape in exchange for you including a link to this awesome story about the Flying V, its history, all that it has inspired, etc., on your website". There are pie-expanding ways to deal with this, rather than zero-sum game approaches.
 
Boudoir Guitar said:
No it doesn't. Sounds like they already had some additional innovation in the pipeline that they're going to fast track.

Also, of course the existence of the monopolies that IP law establishes lead to innovation -- patents often lead to design around products, some of which might actually be better than the ones that came before. BUT, they aren't a justification for some, as Gibson has been doing all day long lately, attempting to expand the scope of the actual monopoly right that they likely have.

The key in all of this is the scope of Gibosn's monopoly right can only be tested in court. There is no black-line test for whether a V-shaped guitar is sufficiently different to not infringe their trademark or not. We do have one case where it was decided: PRS single cut was not found likely to confuse customers because customers were found to be sophisticated enough to tell a PRS apart from a Gibson LP, hanging on a wall in a music store, even from some distance. Despite that loss, Gibson has gone on to send letters to folks that are making guitars, like this danelectro V, that differs even more from the asserted mark than a PRS single cut does from an LP. They are not "protecting their IP right", they are using the threat of lawsuit over the tenuous existence of a trademark right against folks knowing that the threat alone will be enough to get them to give Gibson a wider berth than Gibson should be legally afforded because nobody wants to pay a lawyer .
Click to expand...

I don't know, I just like playing Gibson's guitars.

Sounds like people here are making a way bigger deal out of it than the guy who was actually targeted by the cease and desist.
 
metropolis_4 said:
I don't know, I just like playing Gibson's guitars.

Sounds like people here are making a way bigger deal out of it than the guy who was actually targeted by the cease and desist.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m sure they weren’t bitching about it at all when they got the letter. Not for a minute.

IP rights are part of our society. Overall, proooooobably more good than harm. But they are absolutely a necessary evil, and folks are doing the right thing every time they ask whether an IP holder is attempting to unfairly expand his monopoly right beyond that which he legally holds.

I like playing Gibson guitars, too. I also like taking lots of medications…doesn’t mean I don’t find the patent strategies of most pharmaceutical companies terribly unethical.
 
Boudoir Guitar said:
Yeah, I’m sure they weren’t bitching about it at all when they got the letter. Not for a minute.

IP rights are part of our society. Overall, proooooobably more good than harm. But they are absolutely a necessary evil, and folks are doing the right thing every time they ask whether an IP holder is attempting to unfairly expand his monopoly right beyond that which he legally holds.

I like playing Gibson guitars, too. I also like taking lots of medications…doesn’t mean I don’t find the patent strategies of most pharmaceutical companies terribly unethical.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he did in private, I respect that he took the high road in public. Makes me want to check out his business.

I'm tired of keeping track of all the businesses I'm supposed to hate or cancel because of whatever. Seems like a small company having to be creative and come up with something original instead of copying someone else isn't exactly the biggest problem facing our world today.

I only have the capacity to invest myself in so many issues and Trademark laws are pretty low on my priority list.
 
metropolis_4 said:
I'm sure he did in private, I respect that he took the high road in public. Makes me want to check out his business.

I'm tired of keeping track of all the businesses I'm supposed to hate or cancel because of whatever. Seems like a small company having to be creative and come up with something original instead of copying someone else isn't exactly the biggest problem facing our world today.

I only have the capacity to invest myself in so many issues and Trademark laws are pretty low on my priority list.
Click to expand...
I agree with a decent chunk of where you're coming from. I find it odd how picky folks can be about who they buy guitar gear from, but don't give a second thought about who is producing their food, fuel, etc., which they consume in WAY higher quantities. The biggest way for me to speak with my wallet would be my retirement investment, and I just chunk that into a lifecycle fund and never think twice about what awful business practices I'm "supporting".

How Gibson's Corporate Overlords and Legal Department decide to leverage their IP portfolio probably shouldn't have much bearing on whether or not someone who picked up a Gibson guitar in a shop, liked it, and would like to own it, decides to buy it or not. If one likes the Les Paul, they can still feel very good about supporting the factory line workers, etc.

However, if someone is into Gibson guitars as much because of the Brand as the quality of the guitars they make, of course this kind of thing is going to impact their decision -- because at the end of the day they are buying brand identity more so than a physical guitar.

Where I have disagreement is in your seeming opinion that that nothing is lost by Gibson sending this letter. Prior to their sending this letter, dude was building a guitar that people liked enough that they were buying it. It was an original design, heavily inspired by Gibson Flying V, that I think everyone in this thread would agree nobody would mistake for a Gibson...thus, it was NOT infringing on anyones property rights. And that guitar is not being made anymore. Yes, it sounds like he's going to come out with some other shapes - cool. But that doesn't change the fact that this guitar, that was enjoyed by some in the market, is no longer going to be made and there is no valid reason why that change is happening. And my reading is that he had always intended to come out with additional shapes anyway. So there is a loss in the market because of this practice. It's not going to get me to go picket against Gibson or even to refuse to buy a Gibson guitar that I otherwise like would want to own. But I will tilt my keyboard at a windmill in hope that if enough folks do it MAYBE Gibson's Corporate Overlords and Legal Department will see that there are alternative approaches to achieving their goals that also celebrates and expands the hobby side of the guitar industry. Because as much as I love the rich history of Gibson, Martin, and Fender...I also love the way guitar inspires so many folks to get to work in their garage and create a little cottage industry inspired by the awesome legacies started by Orville, Christian F., and Leo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top