Get ready for it:
https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/gibson-sues-dean-guitars-trademark-infringement/ (https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/gibson-sues-dean-guitars-trademark-infringement/)
Now your Dean guitar is going to become a super-sought-after collectable that was of "superior build quality/ cutting into sales, blah, blah, blah", hence they had a lawsuit against them. It's the new "lawsuit guitar" (to add to the impossibly long list of "lawsuit" guitars).
Quote from: lars on June 26, 2019, 02:40:03 PM
Get ready for it:
https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/gibson-sues-dean-guitars-trademark-infringement/ (https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/gibson-sues-dean-guitars-trademark-infringement/)
Now your Dean guitar is going to become a super-sought-after collectable that was of "superior build quality/ cutting into sales, blah, blah, blah", hence they had a lawsuit against them. It's the new "lawsuit guitar" (to add to the impossibly long list of "lawsuit" guitars).
That's assuming Gibson wins. They might, but it's far from a foregone conclusion. Dean has been allowed to operate with these designs for 40 years. They will certainly argue that Gibson abandoned their trademark.
The video was pretty baffling honestly. The attitude was a little of the mark. To aggressive. I don't feel like the "hey, we're coming for you!" hit the right tone.
I don't know if they have any legal footing, but I can tell you it makes me want a Gibson less. Not that I've ever really longed for a Gibson anyway.
Quote from: pickdropper on June 26, 2019, 03:20:54 PM
Quote from: lars on June 26, 2019, 02:40:03 PM
Get ready for it:
https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/gibson-sues-dean-guitars-trademark-infringement/ (https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/gibson-sues-dean-guitars-trademark-infringement/)
Now your Dean guitar is going to become a super-sought-after collectable that was of "superior build quality/ cutting into sales, blah, blah, blah", hence they had a lawsuit against them. It's the new "lawsuit guitar" (to add to the impossibly long list of "lawsuit" guitars).
That's assuming Gibson wins. They might, but it's far from a foregone conclusion. Dean has been allowed to operate with these designs for 40 years. They will certainly argue that Gibson abandoned their trademark.
I'm speculating but it sounds to me like there may have been something that Armadillo started doing within the last couple/few years that crossed a line since they mention Trademark Counterfeiting in conjunction with a number of their brands.
Quote from: Matmosphere on June 26, 2019, 04:57:51 PM
The video was pretty baffling honestly. The attitude was a little of the mark. To aggressive. I don't feel like the "hey, we're coming for you!" hit the right tone.
I don't know if they have any legal footing, but I can tell you it makes me want a Gibson less. Not that I've ever really longed for a Gibson anyway.
I think a lot of people had that reaction. I fail to see any benefit to making that video. File a lawsuit if you think there's merit, but do it quietly like everybody else instead of making yourself an unlikable bully.
I have Gibson guitars that I really like. I'm far from a hater. But this was handled very poorly.
While not out of character for Gibson, this seems odd. First, Dean has had that headstock style for years, why sue now? Secondly, Gibson has already lost a similar lawsuit against PRS with the Singlecut line, and that one I actually understood, because that represented a legitimate, higher quality threat to Gibsons product line. I can't see Dean competing for the same market as mid level Gibsons and up successfully, though admittedly I haven't been in a guitar store in a couple of years. ESP seems like it would be more of a threat than Dean and have a lot more market presence, and have heavily borrowed from the Gibson guitar catalogue. Maybe Gibson is too afraid to take on a company who might have the ability to fight back, and an artist roster that boosts sale numbers?
Given the amount of awful ideas Gibson has produced over the last couple of decades, it seems to me that they would be better off making design improvements to their bread and butter line to increase sales, as opposed to suing a guitar company that has been brought off life support numerous times.
You can even snitch on guitar companies on the Gibson site, if you feel like it:
https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-launches-anti-counterfeiting-website-report-form-anything-to-declare/ (https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-launches-anti-counterfeiting-website-report-form-anything-to-declare/)
Quote from: Tremster on June 27, 2019, 01:28:25 AM
You can even snitch on guitar companies on the Gibson site, if you feel like it:
https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-launches-anti-counterfeiting-website-report-form-anything-to-declare/ (https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-launches-anti-counterfeiting-website-report-form-anything-to-declare/)
Sounds like a fun thing to abuse. ;D
"Fender copied your fret spacing!"
"PRS is totally stealing your 1/4-in. output jack idea!"
Quote from: GermanCdn on June 26, 2019, 10:08:33 PM
While not out of character for Gibson, this seems odd. First, Dean has had that headstock style for years, why sue now? Secondly, Gibson has already lost a similar lawsuit against PRS with the Singlecut line, and that one I actually understood, because that represented a legitimate, higher quality threat to Gibsons product line. I can't see Dean competing for the same market as mid level Gibsons and up successfully, though admittedly I haven't been in a guitar store in a couple of years. ESP seems like it would be more of a threat than Dean and have a lot more market presence, and have heavily borrowed from the Gibson guitar catalogue. Maybe Gibson is too afraid to take on a company who might have the ability to fight back, and an artist roster that boosts sale numbers?
Given the amount of awful ideas Gibson has produced over the last couple of decades, it seems to me that they would be better off making design improvements to their bread and butter line to increase sales, as opposed to suing a guitar company that has been brought off life support numerous times.
Agree that the crux of their issue (although I not a lawyer) is that they allowed Dean to operate for years. Generally, if you don't enforce your trademarks, they can be invalidated. I'll be curious to see how they argue that point. But I don't think the quality of the competition necessarily factors in from a legal perspective; plus, Gibson sells products at lower price points under the Epiphone moniker that could also be threatened.
Many people have called out Gibson for going after Dean and not going after the myriad other companies doing similar builds (such as ESP or Yamaha). Singling out Dean is typical bully behavior; going after the weaker competitor and ignoring the bigger ones you'd have a harder time beating. In reality, I think their real issue is import counterfeits bearing their name. Anybody can go to Alibaba and get a Gibson style guitar that actually has the Gibson logo on it from China. That's much harder to enforce, though.
Wholeheartedly agree that they would be better off focusing on development and rebuilding their reputation in the post-Henry era. They had gotten off to a good start, but I think this was a step back. I don't get too put off by the lawsuit itself (that happens ALL the time in business) but their video approach was not well thought out.
I think I'll report a B. May guy for copyright infringement on the headstock shape he used on his Red Special, suspiciously similar to the Flying V (can I say Flying V?).
As for the chinese copies: at least in Germany the customs are checking each guitar and kit guitar coming from china for copyright infringement, but I think they only check the brand on the headstock and eventually fake serial numbers and so, but it's getting difficult to have even kit guitars shipped to Germany, you can't even access the ebay page of these "producers" from ebay.de, they are just empty.
Take your pick
https://www.google.com/search?q=facepalm&safe=strict&client=firefox-b-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4ksyEu4rjAhVLbn0KHVkLBGQQ_AUIECgB&biw=1920&bih=966 (https://www.google.com/search?q=facepalm&safe=strict&client=firefox-b-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4ksyEu4rjAhVLbn0KHVkLBGQQ_AUIECgB&biw=1920&bih=966)
Quote from: pickdropper on June 26, 2019, 03:20:54 PM
That's assuming Gibson wins. They might, but it's far from a foregone conclusion. Dean has been allowed to operate with these designs for 40 years. They will certainly argue that Gibson abandoned their trademark.
The fact that no lawsuit whatsoever was even attempted in the 70's against Tokai, Hohner, Aria, etc., hasn't stopped people from referring to those as "lawsuit guitars". Basically, anything MIJ from the 70's that even slightly resembles a Gibson, people advertise as "lawsuit" = more money values and things.
Yes, the exact same thing will happen to Dean guitars, and people will demand a premium because of their newfound interesting pedigree. "Ohh, Gibson was afraid of these...they must be special".
Yes, palm to face indeed.
A buddy of mine just brought this by for me to keep for a bit. Pretty cool.
If a bit of originality is what comes out of the lawsuits then fine by me.
it usually isn't a good look when you lose a similar case at an international level, which Gibson just did in the EU ... while the EU doesn't set law or precedent here in the US, it is a bit of "reading the room" in a global market. I am curious, and I'm sure we'll learn more about, why this was so targeted. It would be more interesting to me to find out which guitar factories are behind runs of chibsons, who those factories normally do work for (or were in contract with at the time), and why Gibson hasn't pursued those murky waters more.
Yeah I saw that... the Flying V shape shows 'no demonstration of distinctive character' is an interesting comment from the EU ruling
Quote from: nzCdog on June 28, 2019, 04:16:19 PM
Yeah I saw that... the Flying V shape shows 'no demonstration of distinctive character' is an interesting comment from the EU ruling
But, it is the only guitar shape that I hate! Doesn't that count for something? :P
Quote from: EBK on June 28, 2019, 04:21:48 PM
Quote from: nzCdog on June 28, 2019, 04:16:19 PM
Yeah I saw that... the Flying V shape shows 'no demonstration of distinctive character' is an interesting comment from the EU ruling
But, it is the only guitar shape that I hate! Doesn't that count for something? :P
No it just means you need to watch more Judas Priest videos:)
I kid.. I don't think that would be a solution to any problems.
I used to not care for it either, but a friend got one several years back and it won me over. It's a rock n roll guitar that forces you to stand up while you rock out (as we all should)
I'm no lawyer, but I would consider this:
the shape of the Flying V guitar "was very original when it was released on the market in 1958, it cannot however deny the evolution of the market during the following 50 years, which was henceforward characterised by a wide variety of available shapes."
This:
"The presence on the market of a significant number of shapes encountered by consumers makes it unlikely that they will regard a particular shape as belonging to a specific manufacturer rather than being just one of the variety of shapes characterising the market."
and this:
the Flying V had become, "One possible variant of the many existing shapes."
pretty interesting and possibly (or I should say hopefully) applicable to any body shape on the market. That would be a good blow to the big F and big G companies...
Found a counterfeit zebra today:
(http://i.imgur.com/UySYLzql.jpg)
Two things, empires in decline do stupid things that usually play no small part in furthering their decline. And Gibson is pretty much a business empire in decline. And secondly Gibson has developed a business culture that loves to make stupid decisions, and this one seems pretty much in character.
News:
https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-loses-flying-v-trademark-case-in-eu-court/ (https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-loses-flying-v-trademark-case-in-eu-court/)
https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-officially-responds-from-confrontation-to-collaboration/ (https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-officially-responds-from-confrontation-to-collaboration/)
I wonder how many of these "rogue overseas players" were at one time officially affiliated with Gibson, but once Gibson got into serious financial trouble, Gibson simply stopped outsourcing to them.
I've seen cheaper Gibson knock-offs that are made overseas, that can sometimes cause consumer confusion in the market. They're called Epiphones... ;D
Quote from: lars on July 03, 2019, 07:48:37 AM
I wonder how many of these "rogue overseas players" were at one time officially affiliated with Gibson, but once Gibson got into serious financial trouble, Gibson simply stopped outsourcing to them.
I've seen cheaper Gibson knock-offs that are made overseas, that can sometimes cause consumer confusion in the market. They're called Epiphones... ;D
Legally, the Epiphones argument is a non-starter. They have every right to license their trademarks to companies and they can still file lawsuits against other companies for violation. Fender uses the same headstocks and body design on Squires and licenses the headstock to Warmoth. Warmoth certainly wouldn't pay for that right if they didn't have to. The fact that Gibson owns Epiphone makes it even more of a non-starter.
I think the video was ill-planned, but the Ephone argument won't hold any water. I'd be surprised if they win against Dean as well, but we'll see.
Quote from: pickdropper on July 03, 2019, 08:54:15 AM
Legally, the Epiphones argument is a non-starter.
It was just an ironic joke. I know Epiphone is owned by Gibson. It's just funny that their whole philosophy lately is "play a REAL Gibson"...buy American...rogue overseas manufacturing...blah, blah, blah. Gibson themselves capitalize on using cheap overseas labor and outsourcing parts and production. If their production plant in Tennessee suddenly has issues, where do you think the necks and bodies start getting shipped in from? Do you really think they're going to say anything and lose money?
Fender had this very thing happen when CBS sold it in the mid-80's. That "USA-made" Fender Strat from 1985 was mostly made in Japan. But it's got a "Made in USA" decal on the headstock. That's all that matters.
Quote from: lars on July 04, 2019, 08:28:44 AM
Quote from: pickdropper on July 03, 2019, 08:54:15 AM
Legally, the Epiphones argument is a non-starter.
It was just an ironic joke. I know Epiphone is owned by Gibson. It's just funny that their whole philosophy lately is "play a REAL Gibson"...buy American...rogue overseas manufacturing...blah, blah, blah. Gibson themselves capitalize on using cheap overseas labor and outsourcing parts and production. If their production plant in Tennessee suddenly has issues, where do you think the necks and bodies start getting shipped in from? Do you really think they're going to say anything and lose money?
Fender had this very thing happen when CBS sold it in the mid-80's. That "USA-made" Fender Strat from 1985 was mostly made in Japan. But it's got a "Made in USA" decal on the headstock. That's all that matters.
There's a whole lot of conjecture in that. Gibson importing bodies for USA guitars? I mean, it's not impossible, but there have been no indications of that happening thus far. That's a bit of a straw man within this context.
I've said (and still say) that the whole approach with publicizing their litigation was handled very poorly and put a lot of people off right at the time where Gibson was starting to get some momentum again. Their new management should have been more media savvy than that. But I have a hard time finding any sort of outrage over the existence of Epiphone. To your point, it does seem a bit ironic given their whole "play authentic" thing, but that just underscores the lack of foresight on Gibson's media approach.
A lot of people hate Gibson anyway and this just fuels their dislike. I happen to quite like Gibson guitars but have been disappointed with their approach in the past. I was hoping the new management would approach things a bit differently. If they learn from this, they'll bounce back quickly enough, but we'll have to see what they do going forward.
https://www.gearnews.com/dean-guitars-alleges-gibson-threatened-dealers-over-copyrights/ (https://www.gearnews.com/dean-guitars-alleges-gibson-threatened-dealers-over-copyrights/)
I doubt it's really the case, but this all makes Gibson look desperate to produce cash. Could they really have so little to lose at this point?
I personally don't play any Gibson's and really dislike how they handle themselves as a company, but I also can't imagine a guitar landscape without them. I hope these guys stop with this crap, because I'm worried that's where this will lead
Just speculating here:
I don't think Gibson is really worried about Dean, per se, or even convinced that they can win outright. They seem to be flexing their muscles to rehabilitate the deterrence value of their IP portfolio. It is becoming easier and easier for overseas manufacturers to whip out surprisingly high quality products similar to Gibson that wouldn't necessarily confuse buyers but would reduce sales. Gibson wants to make that look more expensive so the clone market will hopefully go after lower hanging fruit (less hassle to make strats and teles). They are doing this through the publicity rather than the lawsuit itself. It's basically viral marketing. They are using Dean to put on a theatrical performance. The more eyes on the show, the more valuable the stunt becomes.
The fact that we are talking about it means Gibson is getting what they want.
Quote from: EBK on July 12, 2019, 07:51:52 AM
Just speculating here:
I don't think Gibson is really worried about Dean, per se, or even convinced that they can win outright. They seem to be flexing their muscles to rehabilitate the deterrence value of their IP portfolio. It is becoming easier and easier for overseas manufacturers to whip out surprisingly high quality products similar to Gibson that wouldn't necessarily confuse buyers but would reduce sales. Gibson wants to make that look more expensive so the clone market will hopefully go after lower hanging fruit (less hassle to make strats and teles). They are doing this through the publicity rather than the lawsuit itself. It's basically viral marketing. They are using Dean to put on a theatrical performance. The more eyes on the show, the more valuable the stunt becomes.
The fact that we are talking about it means Gibson is getting what they want.
Interesting perspective, I think you're right. In the long run there is nothing they can do about the Chinese knock off stuff, the Chinese government would have to be onboard for anything to happen there and that's just not gonna happen.
I don't mean to sound like a Gibson apologist but I will play devil's advocate here a bit to try and "keep it real"... I do like Gibson products, but I agree that the corporation has had its fair share of misadventure.
I dont know... again, pure speculation but... I think Gibson knows they can't really win on the Les Paul trademark shape, but I think they attempted to protect some of their more unique and newer trademark shapes like the V and Explorer and a long list of smaller things from USA builders in particular, and that's why Dean/Luna was targeted. There is not jack they can do about the individually imported overseas stuff, but imports sold in the USA and USA built stuff is a different story. I think with Dean, it's just a "straw that broke the camel's back" type situation with the accumulated number of offenses, in combination with the changes at Gibson that "stirred the pot". I mean, they gave them a cease and desist in 2017 in relation to the "Flying V body shape, Explorer body shape, ES body shape as well as the Hummingbird and Moderne trademarks" and they didn't act on it in any way and even went a little further with a big F'U for their 2019 line. I don't see anyone else out there advertising a basically exact "USA Standard" V or Explorer shape with a "rich history" and "Patents Pending" and all that jazz... I mean most of Dean's business is based around the V, Z and ML (which is just a combination of V&Z) shapes.
https://www.deanguitars.com/new-for-2019
Here is Gibson's published list of trademarks:
https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks
A couple of the major offenses:
HUMMINGBIRD ® (U.S. Reg. No. 1931670) For:stringed musical instruments, namely guitars
Registration Date: Oct. 31, 1995
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=1931670&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
https://www.lunaguitars.com/query?upc=814064029262
ES body shape ® (U.S. Reg. No. 2007277)
Registration Date:Oct. 08, 1996
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2007277&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
https://www.amazon.com/Luna-ATH-501-NAT-Semi-Hollow-Body/dp/B004T9K7R4
https://www.lunaguitars.com/electric-guitars
(notice that the Athena hollow bodies have been discontinued/removed)
Here are a couple of examples of some of the other minor "straw" offenses that are not necessarily trademark infringements:
F-Style Mandolin
https://www.lunaguitars.com/query?upc=814064022508
SG and double neck shapes with trapezoid inlays:
https://www.deanguitars.com/subcategory?series=gran_sport_series
Also, Look at how similar the Dean acoustic head stock shape is to the Gibson open book. Its one of the closest I've seen.
It looks like a lot of these trademarks were not actually secured till the mid 90's into the mid 2010's, so the argument that they have not been pursuing trademark protection doesn't seem as applicable and the timeline starts to make a little more sense. I assumed (like many others I'm sure) that Gibson has held these for much, much longer.
https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/the-key-dates-leading-up-to-gibsons-lawsuit-against-dean-guitars/
If you dig into the trademark site details for each registration you can see a lot of really interesting stuff about how they have be pursuing infringers over the years.
My point is, if you really look at all the details, Dean/Luna really does seem to be the biggest overall pursue-able offender.
Here are some of the interesting dates for these trademarks:
Open book head stock shape (original Gibson/Ibanez lawsuit)
® (U.S. Reg. No. 1020485)
Application Filing Date: Apr. 25, 1974
Registration Date: Sep. 16, 1975
Les Paul full body shape: ( took 6 years to get it)
® (U.S. Reg. No. 1782606)
Application Filing Date: Jul. 31, 1987
Registration Date: Jul. 20, 1993
Flying V headstock shape:
® (U.S. Reg. No. 3976202)
Application Filing Date: Jan. 13, 2011
Registration Date: Jun. 07, 2011
Flying V body shape
® (U.S. Reg. No. 2051790)
Application Filing Date: Sep. 06, 1994
Registration Date: Apr. 15, 1997
Explorer headstock shape:
® (U.S. Reg. No. 2696053)
Application Filing Date: Apr. 16, 1999
Registration Date: Mar. 11, 2003
Explorer body shape
® (U.S. Reg. No. 2053805)
Application Filing Date: Sep. 06, 1994
Registration Date: Apr. 22, 1997
SG body shape
® (U.S. Reg. No. 2215791)
Application Filing Date: Apr. 10, 1997
Registration Date: Jan. 05, 1999
Moderne body shape:
® (U.S. Reg. No. 3607851)
Application Filing Date: Feb. 07, 2008
Registration Date: Apr. 14, 2009
Here is another take:
4/2016 - Notice of Suit Incoming from Gibson to Oktober Guitars
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn74570029&docId=NOS20170417161423#docIndex=0&page=1
This is for basically the same stuff as Dean (Flying V name, V body shape, ES body shape, Explorer body shape)
"In late 2016, Oktober Guitars sold the company to a larger, more well-known guitar manufacturer, and officially closed Oktober Guitars in 2017"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oktober_Guitars
Just sayin'... I don't know... Maybe Gibson doing this same thing to Dean is an extremely capitalistic aggressive shitty acquisition/expansion strategy.
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/gibson-shifts-from-confrontation-to-collaboration-with-gibson-authorized-partnership-program (https://www.newschannel5.com/news/gibson-shifts-from-confrontation-to-collaboration-with-gibson-authorized-partnership-program)
well you gotta figure that Heritage is one of those four. If it were me and my company, in the immediate future I wouldn't want to "partner" and wait and see how it all plays out. If these existing suits didn't play out in Dean's favor, I would look to either wind down or shift focus to new models that are unencumbered by these issues. The very last thing I would do is play ball and pay them vig.
Maybe Dean just needs to use some different inlays to clear up any misunderstanding:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41fGYpXrbOL._AC_SY400_.jpg)
;D
Necro bump.
Gibson is now suing Mojo Hand FX over the name "Mister O" phaser, which could be mistaken for "Maestro".
https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-serves-mojo-hand-fx-with-cease-and-desist-over-mister-o-pedal-name/ (https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-serves-mojo-hand-fx-with-cease-and-desist-over-mister-o-pedal-name/)
This all reeks of desperation on Gibson's part. They know they're circling the drain, they have been for a while now.
Maybe this is Gibson's new business model, sue everyone and everything and hope they make enough that way to stay in business.
Lol
Yeah, that name thing is a desperate read.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Tremster on August 05, 2021, 12:16:33 AM
Necro bump.
Gibson is now suing Mojo Hand FX over the name "Mister O" phaser, which could be mistaken for "Maestro".
https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-serves-mojo-hand-fx-with-cease-and-desist-over-mister-o-pedal-name/ (https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-serves-mojo-hand-fx-with-cease-and-desist-over-mister-o-pedal-name/)
Still up to their usual Gibson tricks I see. I hope that company dies and does so very soon.
Quote from: Muadzin on August 07, 2021, 05:09:12 AM
Quote from: Tremster on August 05, 2021, 12:16:33 AM
Necro bump.
Gibson is now suing Mojo Hand FX over the name "Mister O" phaser, which could be mistaken for "Maestro".
https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-serves-mojo-hand-fx-with-cease-and-desist-over-mister-o-pedal-name/ (https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-serves-mojo-hand-fx-with-cease-and-desist-over-mister-o-pedal-name/)
Still up to their usual Gibson tricks I see. I hope that company dies and does so very soon.
In all likelihood, Gibson is probably in a better financial position than they have been in a long time. They shed a lot of the dead weight companies that Henry J. bought and got back to their core profitable business: building guitars. That, coupled with 2020 being a record year for guitar sales, makes it pretty unlikely that they will fold anytime soon, but we will see.
Quote from: pickdropper on August 07, 2021, 01:39:38 PM
Quote from: Muadzin on August 07, 2021, 05:09:12 AM
Quote from: Tremster on August 05, 2021, 12:16:33 AM
Necro bump.
Gibson is now suing Mojo Hand FX over the name "Mister O" phaser, which could be mistaken for "Maestro".
https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-serves-mojo-hand-fx-with-cease-and-desist-over-mister-o-pedal-name/ (https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-serves-mojo-hand-fx-with-cease-and-desist-over-mister-o-pedal-name/)
Still up to their usual Gibson tricks I see. I hope that company dies and does so very soon.
In all likelihood, Gibson is probably in a better financial position than they have been in a long time. They shed a lot of the dead weight companies that Henry J. bought and got back to their core profitable business: building guitars. That, coupled with 2020 being a record year for guitar sales, makes it pretty unlikely that they will fold anytime soon, but we will see.
I concur. They're signing artists again, plus they're talking about a Gibson label? I don't know. I feel like their quality has improved and they're heading in the right direction. This lawsuit is a bit of a stretch though, I feel like.
Quote from: jimilee on August 07, 2021, 02:07:22 PM
Quote from: pickdropper on August 07, 2021, 01:39:38 PM
Quote from: Muadzin on August 07, 2021, 05:09:12 AM
Quote from: Tremster on August 05, 2021, 12:16:33 AM
Necro bump.
Gibson is now suing Mojo Hand FX over the name "Mister O" phaser, which could be mistaken for "Maestro".
https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-serves-mojo-hand-fx-with-cease-and-desist-over-mister-o-pedal-name/ (https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-serves-mojo-hand-fx-with-cease-and-desist-over-mister-o-pedal-name/)
Still up to their usual Gibson tricks I see. I hope that company dies and does so very soon.
In all likelihood, Gibson is probably in a better financial position than they have been in a long time. They shed a lot of the dead weight companies that Henry J. bought and got back to their core profitable business: building guitars. That, coupled with 2020 being a record year for guitar sales, makes it pretty unlikely that they will fold anytime soon, but we will see.
I concur. They're signing artists again, plus they're talking about a Gibson label? I don't know. I feel like their quality has improved and they're heading in the right direction. This lawsuit is a bit of a stretch though, I feel like.
The Murphy's Lab finish issues are currently giving them a bit of a black eye on the internet (as was their somewhat stupid PR comment on it), but they appear to be addressing the issues with owners, which is what's most important.
Quote from: jimilee on August 07, 2021, 02:07:22 PM
Quote from: pickdropper on August 07, 2021, 01:39:38 PM
Quote from: Muadzin on August 07, 2021, 05:09:12 AM
Quote from: Tremster on August 05, 2021, 12:16:33 AM
Necro bump.
Gibson is now suing Mojo Hand FX over the name "Mister O" phaser, which could be mistaken for "Maestro".
https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-serves-mojo-hand-fx-with-cease-and-desist-over-mister-o-pedal-name/ (https://www.gearnews.com/gibson-serves-mojo-hand-fx-with-cease-and-desist-over-mister-o-pedal-name/)
Still up to their usual Gibson tricks I see. I hope that company dies and does so very soon.
In all likelihood, Gibson is probably in a better financial position than they have been in a long time. They shed a lot of the dead weight companies that Henry J. bought and got back to their core profitable business: building guitars. That, coupled with 2020 being a record year for guitar sales, makes it pretty unlikely that they will fold anytime soon, but we will see.
I concur. They're signing artists again, plus they're talking about a Gibson label? I don't know. I feel like their quality has improved and they're heading in the right direction. This lawsuit is a bit of a stretch though, I feel like.
On the second page of the cease and decist letter, it says that the Mojo marketing material was misleading or whatever... I agree thet based on the logo alone, it's stretching, but if mojo marketing was off then it makes more sense.
Edit: apparently the New Kids on the Block are to blame
Honestly, I think from the early seventies through now Gibson's story has been big ups and downs. Don't know how any of this seems any different. They clearly need some fresh blood running the place. This weird adversarial thing they are doing isn't winning them many fans.
Plus, if they want to bitch about somebody making a pedal with a logo that is similar to their old logo and a play on words and is digitally programmed to maybe sound something like a pedal they made decades ago and say it's loosing them money or hurting their brand, then why don't they just make a reissue of that pedal and see if they can make a few bucks off of it themselves. There obviously a market looking for it.
Quote from: matmosphere on August 07, 2021, 08:02:42 PM
Honestly, I think from the early seventies through now Gibson's story has been big ups and downs. Don't know how any of this seems any different. They clearly need some fresh blood running the place. This weird adversarial thing they are doing isn't winning them many fans.
Plus, if they want to bitch about somebody making a pedal with a logo that is similar to their old logo and a play on words and is digitally programmed to maybe sound something like a pedal they made decades ago and say it's loosing them money or hurting their brand, then why don't they just make a reissue of that pedal and see if they can make a few bucks off of it themselves. There obviously a market looking for it.
Yeah, I agree. Significant ups and downs. They were nearly bankrupt when Henry J bought Gibson from Norlin in 1986. He built it up and then ran it into the ground again before it was sold to its current owners. Just massive peaks and valleys.
Right now they seem to have improved quality a bit and are listening more to what their audience seems to want, but man their PR and marketing has a lot of room for improvement.
The C&D thing is sort of dicey. In this case, they didn't make any weird video announcing the cease and desist letter (like they did with Dean guitars at the start of this thread). They just quietly had their lawyers send a letter, which does seem to be somewhat legit in this case. I agree that it would make sense for them to plug that hole in the market, but copyright law only forces them to defend their IP, not actually do anything with it.
https://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/fender-loses-guitar-copyright-case-201886
It's been a little bit, but just to keep it real here... Fender does this same stuff. The distinction is, had they won this case, all these companies and more would have gotten C&D letters.
They "targeted":
"Spector Designs, US Music Corporation, ESP Guitars, Sadowsky Guitars, Lakland Musical Instruments, Peavey Electronics, Warmoth Guitar Products, Schecter Guitar Research, Michael Tobias and others"
Quote from: Aentons on August 08, 2021, 08:07:13 AM
https://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/fender-loses-guitar-copyright-case-201886
It's been a little bit, but just to keep it real here... Fender does this same stuff. The distinction is, had they won this case, all these companies and more would have gotten C&D letters.
They "targeted":
"Spector Designs, US Music Corporation, ESP Guitars, Sadowsky Guitars, Lakland Musical Instruments, Peavey Electronics, Warmoth Guitar Products, Schecter Guitar Research, Michael Tobias and others"
They all do. If you aren't going to defend patents and trademarks, then it's better to save money and not bother registering them in the first place. If you don't defend them, then you may not be able to defend them at a later date.
Quote from: pickdropper on August 08, 2021, 09:43:51 AM
Quote from: Aentons on August 08, 2021, 08:07:13 AM
https://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/fender-loses-guitar-copyright-case-201886
It's been a little bit, but just to keep it real here... Fender does this same stuff. The distinction is, had they won this case, all these companies and more would have gotten C&D letters.
They "targeted":
"Spector Designs, US Music Corporation, ESP Guitars, Sadowsky Guitars, Lakland Musical Instruments, Peavey Electronics, Warmoth Guitar Products, Schecter Guitar Research, Michael Tobias and others"
They all do. If you aren't going to defend patents and trademarks, then it's better to save money and not bother registering them in the first place. If you don't defend them, then you may not be able to defend them at a later date.
That is my understanding of what happened with fender. They went for so long just letting people make guitars that looked just like strays and teles that by the time they tried to stop it the judge basically said it was too late.
Trademarks have been a thing for a long time but I'm sure the laws and other details have slowly changed over time. Why didn't these companies register the trademarks for headstock shapes and body shapes along with the logos back when they did those in the 50's and 60's. The headstock shapes didn't get registered til the 70's, 80's and 90's. The body shapes weren't registered till the 2000's. I'm not a lawyer so who knows what's changed and when in that many years.... Especially with Big Mouse Corp and it's interventions into the system.
https://www.musicradar.com/news/gibsons-landmark-court-victory-changes-the-course-of-guitar-building-history (https://www.musicradar.com/news/gibsons-landmark-court-victory-changes-the-course-of-guitar-building-history)
I'm actually kind of surprised, that stuff is pretty much as old as strats are and (as referenced before in the thread) things went very different for Fender when they tried something similar. I wonder if they'll try to revisit that case.
Either way in the last couple of years there has been a lot of innovation and novel designs that have popped up. Lots of people are making cool looking guitars that aren't Strat, Les Paul or whatever's.
Matter of where the case was tried, East Texas is some hidebound folk, ironically, file the case in their hometown of Kalamazoo they could just as easily lose. among a few reasons besides being shyte at it why Idon't sell what I build ::)