Gibson sends cease and desist to Kiesel

jm9239

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
2,652
Well, I just got an email from Kiesel, and they're still offering the CS-6 and Ultra V models at a discount, so it would seem that's their attitude.
I hope it is. And I hope the discount isn’t just because they want to move through existing inventory (and/or parts) before they stop building them.
 

Sirloin

Member
Messages
15,524
It would lose way more than any PRS - at least most people have heard of PRS. This thing would be like those echopark ghetto things that guys paid $8k-$12k for & they can't even get $4k for them.
I was being a bit sarcastic. If someone bought that 7 string Kiesel for $10k, they might be able to sell it for $2k - and that’s a stretch.

PRS PS guitars do tend to take a huge hit though.

the thing about Kiesel is, no one is forcing you to buy that guitar. Unlike Gibson and their crazy dealer arrangements where the dealer is forced to buy a variety of guitars. Some of which no one wants and sit in their inventory forever.
 

brbadg

Member
Messages
182
Here's a link to the CS6: https://www.kieselguitars.com/guitargallery/cs6

Similar to a Les Paul, yes, but it's not any more similar than other single cut models I've seen from other brands.

Kiesel's V looks nothing like the Gibson, it looks more like a reversed Randy Rhoads V than the Gibson flying V.
https://www.kieselguitars.com/guitargallery/ultrav
What do you mean? V shaped.Case closed.They have every right to do it.
You have the means to create and produce a guitar.Stop copying other company's ****.
 

Gibson Dog

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
1,412
I was being a bit sarcastic. If someone bought that 7 string Kiesel for $10k, they might be able to sell it for $2k - and that’s a stretch.

PRS PS guitars do tend to take a huge hit though.

the thing about Kiesel is, no one is forcing you to buy that guitar. Unlike Gibson and their crazy dealer arrangements where the dealer is forced to buy a variety of guitars. Some of which no one wants and sit in their inventory forever.
That's what I thought but regardless you're 99.9% right on all counts.

Any of those extreme ornate guitars are going to depreciate like throwing a brick into a swimming pool! Someone made a car analogy a week or so ago & it was spot on. You put whatever you want into a car or build/buy a guitar like that thing but when or if you want to sell if you have to find the 1/10% person that wants exactly what you have, almost no chance.

A PRS PS will definitely take a big hit but not as bad as that Kiesel. I don't think you could sell that thing for almost any price, but if you're ready & willing to take a big hit you could definitely sell a PRS PS.

Gibson is run by people that have absolutely no idea what they're doing, period! I'm not a cocky guy at all but I'm confident in my business abilities & I think I could turn the entire company around in under two years. I would immediately cut the models way down, hire back old employees & hire some of the great current builders. I would get everyone crystal clearly on the same page. I would concentrate on getting our house & products in order first. The products have to be high quality, consistent & priced competitively. ZERO sub par guitars leave the factory, period. There's a lot more to it than that but I don't want to give them a blueprint for turning it around (not that they have people in place that are capable of it.) Then once you have a solid foundation there's a correct way of bringing back some models etc & growing the company from there. I would tell everyone to keep their f'n mouths shut & concentrate on a singular plan that would be laid out in extreme detail. Who gives a sh*t what these small companies are doing within reason, one thing they can't copy is your guitars will say Gibson on the headstock. Just my opinion I don't think I am but I could be completely wrong. Time to head to Dreamville..
 

G'OlPeachPhan

Member
Messages
1,185
Why is protection of one's IP such an evil?

If you invented/made/built/developed something iconic, and thousands of imitators copied it, would you happily allow your idea - and your profits - to be diluted?

The fact (and that might be the wrong word) that guitar players like only three body shapes isn't Gibson's fault. They designed one of them. Why shouldn't they be celebrated by both players and the paying public for doing so?

I'm open to an argument that a trademark should legally be more like a copyright or a patent - i.e. it expires after some length of time... but until it is, it isn't. Gibson simply isn't the bad guy for seeking to defend its brand. If Chevy put a Ford logo on its grille - if Ford put a Ferrari emblem on its grille - wouldn't Ford/Ferrari be entitled to say "No!"?
Totally irrelevant example; no one here is using Gibson’s name or emblem, or any likeness of it... unique branding versus claiming ownership of basic geometry are separate things. Is a round wheel and a rubber tire iconic, or essential?

Gibson is grossly stretching the truth of what intellectual property is, and what is justifiable in protecting it, to the detriment us all. To your example, the problem with it is that Gibson, if they were an auto manufacturer, is essentially saying that, ‘if you build a car that has a steering wheel, four wheels, and seats, we’re going to run you off of the road we’re trying to own.’

Gibson is not protecting their intellectual property, they’re protecting their market share, and all but trying to own the very right to own the road itself, and at the least trying make it so they’re the only ones who are allowed to build things to drive on it.

Gibson is copying/stealing others’ ideas to a far greater extent simply by building electric guitars in the first place... Gibson didn’t invent the guitar, but they have purchased the legal rights to push around anyone else who wants to participate. If Gibson were building something that is actually unique and worthy of standing on it’s own merits and competing, the Gibson brand and name would itself stand for that very quality and reputation, and they wouldn’t need to conduct themselves by bullying any competition that comes along, nor need to spend so much money on marketing, endorsements, etc., all allowing them to continue to sell inferior guitars at an inflated price for one reason alone: PROFIT. So as it stands now, the name Gibson stands for a bunch of stuff that has very little to do with guitars.

We’re essentially putting the whole world up for sale to the highest bidder with the deepest pockets, which doesn’t bode well for us guitar players. Will we allow a big company to claim ownership of all basic geometry next?
 
Last edited:

BlueRiff

Member
Messages
6,068
"Nice little guitar company you got here. Would be a shame if something were to, umm, happen to it."
"Where your factory is located - lot's of bad things starting to happen there - unexplained destroyed equipment, fire bombings, employee riots, etc. We both know you need some additional security from the bad guys so we'll get that started immediately and payment is on the first of the month - in cash. No need to bring it to us - we'll come by and pick it up...."
 

Billinder33

Member
Messages
1,569
I'm sure you guys saw this but if not Sully posted it today. I'm trying to stay out of this it's pretty messy! I think Gibson doesn't care & the reality is probably at least 90% of people know nothing about this they just want a guitar & they know their heroes played guitars that said Gibson on them.

This is full on BS, a corporation picking on companies that can't afford to defend themselves, sounds familiar to me. Sully is a good dude & this is big time BS!!

View media item 193964View media item 193962View media item 193963

Pfft... looks just like a Gibson to me:

 

Billinder33

Member
Messages
1,569
It would lose way more than any PRS - at least most people have heard of PRS. This thing would be like those echopark ghetto things that guys paid $8k-$12k for & they can't even get $4k for them.

I'm not that smart but I did go to business school, you're selling a $10,000 new guitar & you say "you have to buy a case with this guitar - $70 or $100" makes me want to smash my head against the wall!! Did they think they needed to fill every pixel of space on the already crowded page? Was it 'bring your kid to work day' & it was a 10yo's idea? That's actually common sense but if you have no common sense they do teach you that stuff in college.

Do guitar companies only hire the bottom 10% in their class? Gibson is literally doing almost every single thing wrong. It's confusing to me how people like this are running a company, these guys/girls are totally clueless.

When you get out of B-school at that top of your class, you go to Goldman Sachs, Andresson Horowitz, Blackrock or worst case Wells or BofA.

If you finish at the bottom and don't have daddy's coattails to ride, you go to small companies in niche industries like Gibson because those are the only companies that will have you.
 
Last edited:

KevWind

Member
Messages
544
Why is protection of one's IP such an evil?

If you invented/made/built/developed something iconic, and thousands of imitators copied it, would you happily allow your idea - and your profits - to be diluted?

The fact (and that might be the wrong word) that guitar players like only three body shapes isn't Gibson's fault. They designed one of them. Why shouldn't they be celebrated by both players and the paying public for doing so?

I'm open to an argument that a trademark should legally be more like a copyright or a patent - i.e. it expires after some length of time... but until it is, it isn't. Gibson simply isn't the bad guy for seeking to defend its brand. If Chevy put a Ford logo on its grille - if Ford put a Ferrari emblem on its grille - wouldn't Ford/Ferrari be entitled to say "No!"?
. Your question is a bit ambiguous and your example is irrelevant. This has nothing to with Gibson protecting itself against counterfeit guitars with fake Gibson "logos " ( your auto example) Which is completely legit BTW

Why is it so hard for people to understand according to the court rulings so far , the basic LP "shape" no longer falls under the specific criteria for it to continue as a protected trademark "IP" ...That is a fact. . What part of that fact, is confusing ?

Given Gibson is obviously aware of that fact, the only logical conclusion is that Gibson is using the ambiguity of how that legal criteria is actually determined for "protecting "trademark IP" in any specific legal case, as a smoke screen, and one can logically assume what they appear to really be doing is attempting to squash (what has so far been ruled as) legal competition, or attempting to force licensing revenue, by threat of law suite over something they know full well, has not stood up in the courts.
 
Last edited:

Billinder33

Member
Messages
1,569
That's what I thought but regardless you're 99.9% right on all counts.

Any of those extreme ornate guitars are going to depreciate like throwing a brick into a swimming pool! Someone made a car analogy a week or so ago & it was spot on. You put whatever you want into a car or build/buy a guitar like that thing but when or if you want to sell if you have to find the 1/10% person that wants exactly what you have, almost no chance.

A PRS PS will definitely take a big hit but not as bad as that Kiesel. I don't think you could sell that thing for almost any price, but if you're ready & willing to take a big hit you could definitely sell a PRS PS.

Maybe you are saying the same thing I am, but this seems like a huge over-generalization. It really depends 100% upon the build. A Kiesel build with a natural, quilt, or flame top (no exotic/expensive topwood), a good common sense paint job like black, deep blue, or antique-burst, and hardware and inlays that match the vibe of the guitar, which ultimately costs around $2k-$2.5k new, those will fetch about the same percentage on resale as any other high end guitar.

It can be argued that common-sense builds with aesthetics that appeal to the masses isn't why you buy a Kiesel in the first place, but from what I see on Reverb, the non-outrageous Keisel builds sell through at a reasonably good clip... about like any other high end guitar.

Pink rainbow burst w/ Lumilay inlays and a Zebrawood fretboad? Yeah, sellers take a bath on those.
 

ShredSquatch

Conspiracy Experience Director & Stunt Guitarist
Silver Supporting Member
Messages
14,409
Has Kiesel desisted yet ? And did they authentically desist or just make some simple changes to avoid desistance ?

~ss
 




Trending Topics

Top