Dean seeks trademark cancellations against Gibson, alleges dealer interference

harvey j

Member
Messages
1,221
Tacky of Gibson to go after dealers. I hope all their under handed dealer relations come out in this suit. Real sad to see what Gibson has become ...... but I won't miss them a bit.
Gibson thinks it is the greatest guitar company in the world and they can push others around, i have news for them they are far from the top. Start making quality and reasonable priced guitars, and maybe we will listen.
 

Papanate

Member
Messages
19,876
Everything affects the way a guitar sounds. That is why for example, Explorers are so popular among some guys, they have a very unique tone because of their design.
Being able to hear differences in tone between multiple guitars is something to be tossed to experts and specialist who can document that difference. In a court of law - Telling a judge that form is a matter of function will fly right into the garbage can - along with most of the claims made by musicians - because even experts can not offer factual science to explain what 'they hear'. Regarding An Explorer - you and I couldn't prove a tonal difference between a Flying V, a plank of asymmetrically cut wood, and an a Ibanez Starman guitar with the same pickups. It's not going to happen in a court of law where the proof has to exist in a measurable and consistent manner.
 

Rockledge

Member
Messages
5,557
True, but all the folks Gibson wants to sue into oblivion have bills, mortgages and families too...
Sad as this reality is, Gibson originates and funcitons in a capitalist country, and capitalism does not exist for the purpose of providing income for employees.
It is exists for the purpose of making bucks for sole proprieters, partnerships, or corporations, be they LLC or full blown preferred stockholder corps.
It is a system where you either swim or you drown.
Companies that cannot compete are expected to fold, it is just how the system works. Hyper competition is the name of the game.
This is true now more than ever given the way the worlds population has grown and the fact that it is now a global competition society, and no countries, be capitalist or otherwise, are closed systems.
We no longer compete with just ourselves, we compete with the whole planet. And if we can't compete, then we fold. It is just that simple.
It doesn't matter who it puts out of work or mortgages or food on the table or anything else.
 

Rockledge

Member
Messages
5,557
Being able to hear differences in tone between multiple guitars is something to be tossed to experts and specialist who can document that difference. In a court of law - Telling a judge that form is a matter of function will fly right into the garbage can - along with most of the claims made by musicians - because even experts can not offer factual science to explain what 'they hear'. Regarding An Explorer - you and I couldn't prove a tonal difference between a Flying V, a plank of asymmetrically cut wood, and an a Ibanez Starman guitar with the same pickups. It's not going to happen in a court of law where the proof has to exist in a measurable and consistent manner.
That is exactly my point. 12 people some of whom may play an instrument and most of whom most likely do not are going to rely on the "experts" presented to them.
If experts say the moon is made of green cheese, and a judge allows their testimony, then a jury might be swayed to think that the moon is indeed made of green cheese by someone whose ego about his "expert knowledge" is big enough for him to be self convincing enough to be convincing to others as well.
Most experienced guitarists can hear differences easily, especially those who also work on them. Experts can explain the technical aspects as to why those differences exist, and put it in scientific terminology, and that is all it takes.
It isn't a matter of convincing a guitarist or anyone else other than a judge and/or jury.
Especially in this day and age when anyone asked to sit on a jury has no doubt seen the insane amount of exaggerated and often outright fantasy representation of forensics on the 24/7 barrage of cop shows on TV. People don't just accept technical data as a fact of life, they expect it.
Whether it really amounts to any part of reality or not.
 

Gevalt

Member
Messages
1,839
I suspect you haven't even a clue of what a subpoena is. That is how it works in my state, you get one and you show up, and that is that.

You also obviously understand nothing about our legal system, or how cases are argued by lawyers.
I said nothing about a guitar even being presented in a court room, or "knobs twiddled".
Your comprehension skills seem to be seriously lacking, as does your logic skills.
Go back and read my posts, and actually read them, don't just listen to all the absurdities rattling around in your head.
Rockledge, you're vicious at putting other people down. You remind me of my abusive father and I think you should go listen to man in the mirror or something, ffs.
 

therhodeo

Member
Messages
9,872
Rockledge, you're vicious at putting other people down. You remind me of my abusive father and I think you should go listen to man in the mirror or something, ffs.
He also doesn't understand the difference between objective and subjective. Nor the legal differences between a civil and criminal case. Nor the difference between an expert witness and a material witness.
 

Gurn

Member
Messages
999
I miss Henry J. already.

Huda thunk how much money he coulda lost if he’d unleashed a phalanx of trademark lawyers
on every guitar maker’s ***. The potential sums are staggering.

Think of the chaos he could have unleashed.

Robo-tuners? Pffft!

Lawyer’s hourly billing are where he could have really raked in the negative big bucks.

What was he thinking? This new Gibson team is really on the ball.
Sue ‘em. Require licenses on V shaped guitars. That’s where the real money is.
 

Stinky Kitty

Supporting Member
Messages
4,148
One observation about this entire affair, at least from this old coot's perspective. I don't know anyone who actually plays guitar that would mistake a Dean Flying V for a Gibson Flying V based off Dean's now legendary headstock itself. You could spot it a mile away. I remember attending a Triumph concert back in 1982 and from 150-feet away, twelve rows up, when Rik walked out with that white V, I was like "wow, nice Dean." I never thought it was a Gibson. Then again, if one's plans are to load a jury with folks who wouldn't know a Fender from a Cort, I suppose the verdict they're hoping for is possible. Let's hope Dean lawyers (if it ever gets that far) are as good as Paul's were.
 

KevWind

Member
Messages
518
This is about the ability of a lawyer to convince a jury or a judge that the shape of a guitar is a function, and therefore a patent issue and not a trademark issue.
You seem to be confused about how patents work. Or more perhaps about when they expire. Any design patents Gibson would have had when the guitars in question first came out, would now be long expired.

Thus whether or not shape is function is a mute point and totally irrelevant.

Because it would be stupid , pointless and legally impossible, for Gibsons lawyers to try to convince a jury that the issue involved was any kind of patent issue . By US patent statute, the only recourse Gibson has now, is trademark infringement. Which is in point of fact what the case is about.
 

therhodeo

Member
Messages
9,872
You seem to be confused about how patents work. Or more perhaps about when they expire. Any design patents Gibson would have had when the guitars in question first came out, would now be long expired.

Thus whether or not shape is function is a mute point and totally irrelevant.

Because it would be stupid , pointless and legally impossible, for Gibsons lawyers to try to convince a jury that the issue involved was any kind of patent issue . By US patent statute, the only recourse Gibson has now, is trademark infringement. Which is in point of fact what the case is about.
Moot point
 

Rockledge

Member
Messages
5,557
You seem to be confused about how patents work. Or more perhaps about when they expire. Any design patents Gibson would have had when the guitars in question first came out, would now be long expired.

Thus whether or not shape is function is a mute point and totally irrelevant.

Because it would be stupid , pointless and legally impossible, for Gibsons lawyers to try to convince a jury that the issue involved was any kind of patent issue . By US patent statute, the only recourse Gibson has now, is trademark infringement. Which is in point of fact what the case is about.
I suspect it is you who are confused about how patents work, and entirely miss my point which I have stated many times.
Function is mute? You mean it is silent? Perhaps you meant "moot"?

And you obviously didn't actually read my posts, or I would not have to explain this again.
Read the entire post , don't just spot one word in it and think you understand it.

Which, read carefully, my point is that patent is about function. A patent is used to document an element of something that makes it function differently. That is a patent issue.
If the patent on something is expired, then it is not possible to infringe on that patent.

A trademark is a mark that declares that a product was produced by a specific individual or company.
My point is that if Dean can prove that their V shaped guitar is shaped as it is as a matter of function, and not being used as a trademark, then they cannot possibly be taking part in a trademark infringement, because it is an issue of patent.
Do some research and learn the difference between a patent, trademark, and copyright.

In other words, I am suggesting that perhaps Gibson is trying to enforce a trademark in a situation that is about patent, not trademark, and is perhaps trying to use trademark in place of an expired patent.
 


Trending Topics

Top