How did Prs get sued and non Heritage?

[spyrotheleo]

Hey,
I was wondering, why did PRS get sued by Gibson for their SC design? I dont ever recall Heritage ever getting sued, even though they have a design way closer to Gibson's Les Paul?

[spyrotheleo]

Haha, and in the title I mean not. Not non!

[Luke]

Heritage is an out growth of Gibson. Hamer did not get sued either but it is because they have a piece of paper from Gibson in the 1970s allowing them to make single cuts.

[Radagacuca]

i suppose they had an agreement to continue building the guitars with just some changes in desing like headstock design etc..
after all heritage is what was gibson before...

[FlackBase]

Because Heritage doesn't have anywhere near as much money as PRS.

[27sauce]

Because Heritage doesn't have anywhere near as much money as PRS.

yes, and Heritage doesnt pose such a threat.

[daddyo]

I believe the correct answer is Heritage pays (or did pay) Gibson a licensing fee.

[Virtual Pariah]

Heritage and Hamer had some sort of an agreement with the previous management.
Heritage because they are ex Gibson employees and Hamer because they paid a licensing fee.

I believe that the current management would have made some moves against them had they not had that grandfathered agreement.

[dspellman]

Normally if you're going to enforce an intellectual property (copyright, patent, trademark, etc.) right, the initial contact is a letter, and that usually results in either a cease and desist or a licensing fee extracted from the other party. If not, and if it goes to court, these things usually cost in excess of $100K before a verdict is rendered. A lot of small vendors don't have the money to push the case, so Gibson will try to bully them into giving in rather than face the costs involved. OTOH, Gibson doesn't want to have to spend a lot of time in court for no financial gain; if you're small enough, you're essentially judgement proof. In addition, Gibson needs to prove damages in order to collect any. It's just not worth bothering with some of the small fry. In the case of PRS, Gibson's lawyers stepped on their own genitalia by having one of their own witnesses offer the opinion that there was no possible way that the PRS could be mistaken for a Gibson. Case over. And precedent set. They were on their way to losing that case anyway; single cutaway guitars existed before Gibson produced them. Worth noting that Gibson didn't win the "headstock" suit back in the 70's, either, and it never went to verdict. It was settled out of court because Ibanez (the defendant) had changed its headstocks two or three years before, and Gibson's lawyers weren't aware of it.

[Bobby D]

I believe the correct answer is Heritage pays (or did pay) Gibson a licensing fee.

ding ding ding!

and that's the old kalamazoo factory. lotta history there...

[zakkwyldefan79]

I believe the correct answer is Heritage pays (or did pay) Gibson a licensing fee.
I second this.

[captain_bob]

I think real issue is that Gibson found PRS a threat as mentioned before.

[Jazz2Punk]

Hey,
I was wondering, why did PRS get sued by Gibson for their SC design? I dont ever recall Heritage ever getting sued, even though they have a design way closer to Gibson's Les Paul?

According to a quick google search, Gibson did sue Heritage in the early 90's for trademark infringement.

Here's one link:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gibson+sues+Heritage+for+design+infringement.-a09372954


Gibson Guitar Company has filed suit against Heritage Guitar, charging that the Kalamazoo company has "engaged in progressive encroachment upon Gibson designs and has thus created confusion, mistake, and deception of the purchasing public to a greater and greater degree." The suit asks for $25 million in damages, that Heritage be barred in the future from producing guitars which infringe upon Gibson designs, and that existing supplies of such guitars be destroyed.

Gibson President Dave Berryman explained, "We filed the suit because the Heritage products were direct infringements on Gibson trademarks. We are also charging that Heritage is falsely representing itself as the original Gibson."' Specifically, Berryman expressed the belief that Heritage was producing direct copies of well known Gibson models, including the Les Paul, the ES-335, and the L-5.

Philip North, attorney for Heritage, disputes the Gibson charges, arguing that Gibson's product designs do not represent a trademark. He added that Gibson has no registered or common law trademark because the company has not diligently protected its designs in the past.

The dispute between Gibson and Heritage is the result of a unique relationship. After Gibson closed its Kalamazoo, Michigan factory and consolidated its manufacturing operations in Nashville in 1984, four ex-Gibson Kalamazoo employees launched the Heritage Guitar Company, housed in a portion of the former Gibson plant.

Heritage principles-Jim Deurloo, Bill Paige, J.P. Moats, and Marv Lamb-collectively spent over 100 years building Gibson guitars in Kalamazoo. When they struck out on their own with Heritage, it came as no surprise that the guitars they produced were very reminiscent of classic Gibson designs. Bill Paige doesn't dispute the existence of similarities between Gibson and Heritage products, but he doesn't feel that he is doing anything wrong. "We are talking about design concepts that have been used by manufacturers around the world for years. There comes a point where widely used designs become public domain."

[GtrDr]

Remember, the PRS suit was overturned.

[A-Bone]

According to a quick google search, Gibson did sue Heritage in the early 90's for copyright infringement.

Here's one link:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gibson+sues+Heritage+for+design+infringement.-a09372954


Gibson Guitar Company has filed suit against Heritage Guitar, charging that the Kalamazoo company has "engaged in progressive encroachment upon Gibson designs and has thus created confusion, mistake, and deception of the purchasing public to a greater and greater degree." The suit asks for $25 million in damages, that Heritage be barred in the future from producing guitars which infringe upon Gibson designs, and that existing supplies of such guitars be destroyed.

Gibson President Dave Berryman explained, "We filed the suit because the Heritage products were direct infringements on Gibson trademarks. We are also charging that Heritage is falsely representing itself as the original Gibson."' Specifically, Berryman expressed the belief that Heritage was producing direct copies of well known Gibson models, including the Les Paul, the ES-335, and the L-5.

Philip North, attorney for Heritage, disputes the Gibson charges, arguing that Gibson's product designs do not represent a trademark. He added that Gibson has no registered or common law trademark because the company has not diligently protected its designs in the past.

The dispute between Gibson and Heritage is the result of a unique relationship. After Gibson closed its Kalamazoo, Michigan factory and consolidated its manufacturing operations in Nashville in 1984, four ex-Gibson Kalamazoo employees launched the Heritage Guitar Company, housed in a portion of the former Gibson plant.

Heritage principles-Jim Deurloo, Bill Paige, J.P. Moats, and Marv Lamb-collectively spent over 100 years building Gibson guitars in Kalamazoo. When they struck out on their own with Heritage, it came as no surprise that the guitars they produced were very reminiscent of classic Gibson designs. Bill Paige doesn't dispute the existence of similarities between Gibson and Heritage products, but he doesn't feel that he is doing anything wrong. "We are talking about design concepts that have been used by manufacturers around the world for years. There comes a point where widely used designs become public domain."

Trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. Different types of intellectual property. Different standards. Different type of damage.

[Darth Tater]

Wow. Just when I thought it wasn't possible to hate Gibson any more...

[Jazz2Punk]

Trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. Different types of intellectual property. Different standards. Different type of damage.

Corrected.

Not up on legal mumbo jumbo. Just know my Heritage guitars are every bit as good as my Gibsons but they cost less. :D

[LTE]

Money. PRS had (has) more than Heritage.

[Joe L]

What is ironic in any issues between Gibson and Heritage is that the "old masters" who developed the guitar designs when working at Gibson for many years are the gentlemen who started Heritage.

[Jazz2Punk]

Money. PRS had (has) more than Heritage.

I already pointed out that Gibson did go after Heritage. I think for Gibson, a threat is a threat no matter how much money is involved.

[AudioWonderland]

Hey,
I was wondering, why did PRS get sued by Gibson for their SC design? I dont ever recall Heritage ever getting sued, even though they have a design way closer to Gibson's Les Paul?


Heritage was not a financial threat to them. PRS was.

[Jazz2Punk]

I guess nobody reads through these threads lol.

[webe123]

Why did PRS get sued by Gibson?....Well as one Gibson lawyer put it....because it would be hard to distinguish a Gibson les paul from a PRS singlecut in a ....SMOKE FILLED ROOM! LOL! (forget the fact that a lot of bars are now making smoking limited to certian areas)....But Gibson is so stuck in the 50's and 60's they did not know this.

And yes the "smoke filled room" was actually supposed to be a part of Gibson's legal defense...no wonder they lost!

[ABKB]

I guess nobody reads through these threads lol.

No, they don't. They read the OP and just write from there. Kinda surprised though that Gibson did go after Heritage in that Heritage probably should have struck an agreement with Gibson when Gibson pulled up out of Kalamazoo. But while they might have tried, I suspect though that Gibson was probably asking for too much money.

[Bluedawg]

Wow. Just when I thought it wasn't possible to hate Gibson any more...


Fender and PRS have done there share of lawyering as well ...

Notice that no one of any import is putting birds or dragon inlays on their guitars ...

:BluesBros

[Guitarworks]

There are individuals and companies all over the planet making guitars that are identical to, inspired by, or only slightly altered versions of, Gibson guitars. To protect their interests, I'm betting the top brass at Gibson fully intends to stop each and every one of them, somehow, someway. But I don't see how it can be done. For to do so might actually mean Gibson having to pour more resources into legal affairs than into producing guitars. There are simply way too many people and companies that Gibson would classify as offenders infringing on their turf. I think Gibson has no choice but to concede defeat and accept that their designs have in fact become public domain.

[somedude]

There are individuals and companies all over the planet making guitars that are identical to, inspired by, or only slightly altered versions of, Gibson guitars. To protect their interests, I'm betting the top brass at Gibson fully intends to stop each and every one of them, somehow, someway. But I don't see how it can be done. For to do so might actually mean Gibson having to pour more resources into legal affairs than into producing guitars. There are simply way too many people and companies that Gibson would classify as offenders infringing on their turf. I think Gibson has no choice but to concede defeat and accept that their designs have in fact become public domain.

Gibson (or any manufacturer for that matter) is obligated, by law, to legally challenge any and every infringement on their trade marks... no matter how small the 'little guy' may be. Failure to do so against one can actually be used by another as a defence.

[Metalrulez]

You have to love the court of the internut......here comez tha judge here comez tha judge!!

[LTE]

I already pointed out that Gibson did go after Heritage. I think for Gibson, a threat is a threat no matter how much money is involved.

Sorry didn't see your original post.

I think it's more motivated by money. PRS had alot of exposure in print ads and on TV than Heritage.

I didn't hear about the Hertiage lawsuit till years later. There was alot more money at stake with PRS.

[webe123]

Gibson (or any manufacturer for that matter) is obligated, by law, to legally challenge any and every infringement on their trade marks... no matter how small the 'little guy' may be. Failure to do so against one can actually be used by another as a defence.

Yeah and what about when they LOSE? Like in this case.

They came off looking greedy in a lot of peoples eyes and the idiotic "smoke filled room" statement of their legal defense made them look like idiots.

Sorry, but PRS won big time over gibson in this one..AND set a legal standard so now other companies that have single cut shapes pretty much do not have to worry as long as it does not look TOO much like a les paul. Great going Gibson.

[somedude]

Yeah and what about when they LOSE? Like in this case.

They came off looking greedy in a lot of peoples eyes and the idiotic "smoke filled room" statement of their legal defense made them look like idiots.

Sorry, but PRS won big time over gibson in this one..AND set a legal standard so now other companies that have single cut shapes pretty much do not have to worry as long as it does not look TOO much like a les paul. Great going Gibson.

If Gibson didn't challenge them then it would've set a precedent as any future defendants would use the fact the Gibson allowed PRS to use the single cut design as their defence.

Long story short, Gibson would've lost either way. I suspect they probably figured PRS would agree to a royalty to avoid the court expenses... particularly since their SC design has never seemed that popular.

The real problem is that people get all emotional over stuff that businesses have to do by law. They see someone like Gibson suing PRS and they get all bent out of shape because Gibson is showing it's greed by running poor old PRS into the ground. What they fail to see is that Gibson is obligated to challenge everyone for every infringement. Same as PRS has to do with the bird inlays and headstock design.