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]

Originally Posted by FlackBase

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]

Originally Posted by daddyo

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]

Originally Posted by daddyo

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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...ent.-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]

Originally Posted by Jazz2Punk

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...ent.-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.