Discussion in 'Guitars in General' started by Rocco Crocco, Jun 20, 2019.
Except the LAW says it does...
It's been a while but IIRC I believe that was part of the PRS appeal that got Gibson reversed and helped end the injunction.
The law is generally going to look at how an industry operates, precedent and do what's best for the consumer. These kinds of cases have been litigated and generally, unless it's enough of a rip off to totally confuse or hurt a consumer the courts have let the industry operate business as usual.
Body shapes from the 50s may not get protected. These same shapes were litigated in the "lawsuit" era with Japanese firms and it was found that specific designs like headstocks were protected as they did cause mislead buyers.
Maybe I'm too deep in as a player but I've never felt a Dean was anything like a Gibson down to feel and finish. Plus they have their own ideas like the Cadillac.
For a company that's had one financial and PR mess after another this seems like a move prompted by business people and investors who aren't familiar with the industry and aren't listening to good advice.
This is guitars not Silicon Valley. The industry has found an even keeled way of operating for a long time now. Putting this in the hands of the courts is a wild card. It reminds me of the Thicke / Gaye Blurred Lines dispute. Non-industry experienced, judicial folks ended up making the wrong call and it's opened future problems.
There's enough precedent to back Dean but you never know what will happen. Of course I'm not a legal expert and I'll defer to anyone with a law/IP background.
For the sake of us all I hope this doesn't upend a good thing. We want innovation not a ton of lawsuits ona very basic piece of tech - electric guitars.
How Agnesi got dragged into making social/YT posts about this is uncertain but again, another bad PR move (they pulled the video) among many.
You are splitting hairs over a non-issue. Either way, the is a legal dispute over patent or trademark design, and it apparently isn't boding well with guitarists, both those who like Gibson guitars and those who don't particularly like them.
And of course they were patented, at one time. The original patents would have required blue prints of the exact designs in order to be valid.
You seem to have become so hung up over a non-issue that you completely missed the point I made in my post.
This is the crux of the issue.
Gibson is still trying to sell Rolls Royces in Honda Accord economy.
Guys are no longer interested in paying a fortune for a guitar just so the neighbors can see it sit in their driveway. They are buying instruments that do the same job , often better, because they just want to get from here to there and could care less what the neighbors think.
Gibson just plain seems to have missed the boat when it comes to the musical instrument consumer market.
The current market isn't about finding what it shiniest and most revered for its' sparkle and flash, it is about getting the job done.
One thing Fender deserves much credit for is not only playing to the market, but foreseeing the future market and shooting for it. If you think about it, Squier was probably the most forward thinking entry into the musical instrument market.
Gibson should have followed suit, and did not.
It isn't "spltting hairs" or a "non-issue." All we have here is language, and patents are fundamentally distinguishable from trademarks (or copyrights or trade secrets). It matters to get that right when describing these situations, and it isn't (or shouldn't be) all that difficult to do so.
And one thing particularly significant in the present instance, which would not be true of a valid patent, is that trademark rights holders have a duty to police their mark(s), failure of which to do can result in the loss of the ability to sue to enforce it or even of the mark itself.
When you say "of course they were patented," what is the "they" to which you refer? Headstocks? Body silhouettes? Something else altogether?
You have to stop with the sweeping generalizations about people who play a different guitar than you. Everyone is such an expert when it comes to marketing and what people want.
Doesn't this site exist in large measure because of folks who buy and play comparatively expensive guitars (and equipment) -- understanding that "comparatively expensive" is a relative concept?
It's pretty easy for an interested person to look up Gibson's intellectual property.
Use the search box to find more registrations.
In terms of their trademarks, you can also see them on Gibson's own website.
Yes...But it doesn't hurt to verify if the registrations are current and valid or ownership held by someone else...like a creditor.
Bingo. I dont get how people are out there paying $3000+ for a stock electric guitar. Like if thats what youre into, great, but the vast majority of players wouldnt go near that price for that "value."
Fender, historically one of the most innovative and forward thinking major guitar companies out there has hit the sweet spot where they have a great selection of midpriced guitars and then also $1500+ higher end guitars for the "die hards" who want a great guitar at a premium but still affordable price.
Idk wtf Gibson's deal is, theyve been on shaky ground since like 2005, spent 10 years repairing their image somewhat and then start pulling dumb **** like this that alienates customers and skews peoples perceptions of them as the archaic, out of touch, bloated whale carcass.
Sorry maybe i showed too much bias in that last bit
PS: I dont really care for Dean but to their credit they have been trying to make more of a name for themselves over the last few years and some of their american made stuff is really quite nice and def. Not directly ripping off Gibson or anyone else (as far as I can tell).
In addition to filing suit, it seems as though Gibson sent letters to Dean's dealers.
If that's correct, I wonder if it was just those that also carry Gibson, or all of them.
I hear that they're suing Epiphone next.
If I were Dean, I'd file a countersuit for damages.
Just when I thought Gibson couldn't get any worse they release that cringe-worthy video and then sue Dean. Why anybody would buy an over-priced guitar of suspect quality from an arrogant and cringy company like Gibson is beyond me. I'll continue to spend my money elsewhere, like with PRS.
Since litigation appears to be the subject of this thread, the entire guitar playing community should have sued Gibson for this.
PRS is worth it more than Gibson is.