Gibson Drops From A Great Height.....

[icr]

There are two fakes here. Can you tell them? I couldn't, it looks like three originals and a single fake to me. The only way I know is one fake image came from here ( New Vintage Guitars - Slaman Guitars Portal) So, the point of the original post is Gibson should only try to stop poorly executed, obvious fakes?

[powerwagonjohn]

A rose by any other name still sounds as sweet!
Thanks John

[MaxTwang]

I don't think that my ego is involved, but that is one reason why I have liked to build partscasters and use the innovations available to come up with something tailored to my needs. They aren't really repros, but they do use some licensed parts modded for my needs.



Maybe not, but would a person that bought this want to eventually own an actual Fender Strat. Maybe.

Someone building for their own use is not what Gibson is going after. Gibson's issue is commercially building guitars using Gibson's trademarks to compete with Gibson's products at the expense of Gibson's sales.

[jazzbow]

How about this?.


Whom do you send the cease and desist to? Tanglewood/Cort or Starus Quo?

Copyright head stock shapes are a language we all subconsciously recognize.

I had a Strat that I changed the decal. Using the same script as Fender I produced a decal that everyone would think said Fender but was something completely different. I wish I had a picture but I don't.


Does anyone remember this decal?
Eventually Fender stopped Tokai from producing this decal. The head stock was changed too.


So this came through. Same but different. I think it looks faster!

So i think Mr Slaiman could jazz up the juice on the open book styled head stock.

[goldenwave77]

Before Gibson trademarked the "moustache" headstock top, it was in public domain as it was very common on many brands. Stromberg (in Elmers days) and Epiphone (before the Gibson takeover) are just two examples. I have always wondered how Gibson got away with trademarking such a widespread design detail which had been used by so many for so many years.

Be nice to know what the true story is here. Wasn't Stromberg basically a boutique builder who produced a tiny number of guitars? And Gibson bought Epiphone back in what....1962, or thereabouts?! So, it's possible it might have been "public domain" and ceased to be so at some point. And "takeover" makes this sound like rape....I KNOW a girl who is part of the Stathopoulous family....and believe me the whole downward trajectory of that company's history is just sad...family squabbles. Gibson came in and bought them out, probably while it still had some value, but in another 5 or 10 years Epiphone probably would have ended up like Harmony, or Larsen Bros. or any number of smaller instrument makers, i.e. that went on to the elephant's graveyard of former businesses. I mean Fender came damn near to going out of business.

Maybe there were others out there using the headstock, maybe not. Somebody would have had to challenge the trademark, and possibly defend a trademark infringement suit, and it sounds like nobody ever did.

A lawsuit would have been expensive, prolonged, and frankly the equities are not overwhelming...."Gee Gibson went and registered the trademark, and we should have the right to use this (non-exclusive) feature because we want to be known as one of the many companies who use this non-distinctive, worthless feature....and therefore let us continue to be one of the many..." I mean as a marketing point....it just falls flat.

AFAIK, trademark registration is not like submitting patents to the patent office, where theoretically, they are reviewed and the concept of "patentability" must be demonstrated.

This guy Slaman builds fine guitars but I think he was doing something he did not need to do, and shouldn't have done.

People love to gang up on Gibson. Take a look at the 50 biggest American companies of 1920. A large number of them aren't around anymore.

[John A.]

The funny thing about trademarks and patents is they patent and trademark the wrong things.

At IBM they patented the wrong I/O bus and microcode leaving everything else public domain for cloners to run free. See where it got the IBM PC?

With guitars they protect the HEAD??? What??? A Strat, or Les Paul Body is as much IP as anything else. IMO that is... their loss not mine.

With the headstock (which is a trademark, not a patent) it isn't a matter of protecting the right or wrong thing. It's (SFAIK) the only aspect of of the look and feel of their guitars they've successfully defended from trademark infringement in court. Patenting is a whole other story, and Gibson has patented many things (humbuckers, the original LP TP, truss rods).

John

[oldane]

What? Gibson found a headstock commonly used in the public domain and then used it, trademarked it, so only they themselves could legally use it?

That was not quite what I said. I said that it was a common design detail and a number of manufacturers, Gibson included, used it for many years before the trademark protection. Gibson didn't "steal" it from others. But yes, a detail thus trademarked can only be used legally by the owner of the trademark.

To me it would make more sense to trademark design details when they are first introduced and not after several decades of widespread use. For example the cutaway when it was introduced by Gibson in the late 1930s or the Fender Strat body shape in the beginning if the 1950s. But those designs have been and are still widely used by lots of manufacturers.

I have no intention to bash Gibson guitars as such. They have been a leading innovator and manufacturer for a century and have made some of the best guitars available. But this particular "lawsuit" detail has always puzzled me.

[lammie200]

...But this particular "lawsuit" detail has always puzzled me.

IMHO it is because headstock shapes and brandings are unique to manufacturers and are sacred ground. While body shapes may also have been unique to manufacturers, they are now free advertising for those manufacturers.

[goldenwave77]

Well, the problem with automatically trademarking stuff when it is introduced is that it's costly. You have to do searches in lots of places. And if YOUR product is not widely known, and established, it may be a waste of time, as I think there is a legal element of widespread use.

Actually, these other companies back in the 50's could have collectively challenged Gibson, but it probably wasn't worth the effort to do so.

It is interesting that in patents, as distinct from trademarks, this type of thing happened with the sewing machine. There were at least 8 or 10 people who had a colorable claim to having "invented" the sewing machine. For one reason or another, Singer ended up with the patents, but the lawyers and financiers who sorted this out back in the 19th century ended up having the litigants/disputants contribute their patents into a new entity, and they were given equity interests in the new Singer. Believe me, they all did very well as a result.

Singer, became world famous, and for a long time they had a great reputation for reliability and ruggedness. My grandmother had one, treadle operated that was at least fifty years old.

I recently had shoes resoled in Detroit ($40 vs. $125 in NYC). The guy who ran the shop was a Croatian immigrant, and knew Singer from the old country, and in his Detroit shop, his stitching machine was a Singer, circa 1915. In his words, "th-is is GOOD machine....new stuff....cheap cr*p....I never get rid of this one."

[Cunamara]

I don't know Daniel personally, but I would guess he probably thought Gibson wouldn't worry about a (in their terms) very small one-man luthier outfit. I'm not saying its ok to infringe copyright...

To pick a nit, the issue is infringing trademark not copyright. The laws governing the two are very different and both are very different from patent law. Unfortunately these three get lumped together under the silly term "intellectual property" in far too many discussions, which results in confusion and inaccurate understanding.

If you hold a trademark you are required to defend it; if not, you can lose control of the trademark through what is known as the "doctrine of laches." It doesn't matter how small the infringer might be, the holder still has to defend. So Gibson has to go after quality builders like Slaman who are making a tribute product to the makers of Chibsons who are just looking to make a buck from the gullible.

[GNAPPI]

With the headstock (which is a trademark, not a patent) it isn't a matter of protecting the right or wrong thing. It's (SFAIK) the only aspect of of the look and feel of their guitars they've successfully defended from trademark infringement in court. Patenting is a whole other story, and Gibson has patented many things (humbuckers, the original LP TP, truss rods).

John

I know the difference, my point was about protection or lack of protection of IP.

[silverfoxx]

It is nonsense to suggest that Daniel Slaman's Guitars are
hurting Gibson sales , we are talking about a one man
operation, luthier who is supplying what guitarists want,
a hand built quality instrument although similar in design
with CC pickups and stunning appointments, which ,if
Gibson condescended to build, would cost an arm and a leg.
i reiterate , Slaman ( no affiliation ) is supplying a market
at reasonable cost , which Gibson will not. The matter has
recently been made more difficult by the latest CITES decree.
A friend on this Forum owns three Slamans and tells me that
they are superior to Gibsons , and he like yours truly has had
a very large number of Gibsons of all descriptions.
I am not knocking Gibson , I reduced my collection to Six
recently. But I did consider selling one in order to fund a
custom built Slaman but it's a buyers market currently.
Just my 2p's worth.

[Cunamara]

It is nonsense to suggest that Daniel Slaman's Guitars are hurting Gibson sales , we are talking about a one man operation, luthier who is supplying what guitarists want, a hand built quality instrument although similar in design with CC pickups and stunning appointments, which ,if Gibson condescended to build, would cost an arm and a leg. i reiterate , Slaman ( no affiliation ) is supplying a market at reasonable cost , which Gibson will not.

It doesn't matter whether Slaman's sales hurt Gibson's- the issue is whether the trademark infringement can cause confusion in branding and the Gibson open book headstock outline is one of those. The law requires Gibson to defend their trademark. If they let Slaman use it, they can lose their ability to challenge large scale producers over trademark infringement (say, Ibanez or the makers of Chibsons). Headstock design is important in identifying the product- look at the Tele and Strat headstocks; Leo did a different design for the G&L guitars. Heritage uses a different design than gibson did (and it is a change many don't seem to like very much). D'Angelico designed his own broken pediment form which identifies those guitars.

Slaman will not lose a single sale over not using the Gibson headstock outline, but Gibson could be harmed by turning a blind eye and letting him use it even for just a handful of guitars.

[Fred Archtop]

It is nonsense to suggest that Daniel Slaman's Guitars are
hurting Gibson sales , we are talking about a one man
operation, luthier who is supplying what guitarists want,
a hand built quality instrument although similar in design
with CC pickups and stunning appointments, which ,if
Gibson condescended to build, would cost an arm and a leg.
i reiterate , Slaman ( no affiliation ) is supplying a market
at reasonable cost , which Gibson will not. The matter has
recently been made more difficult by the latest CITES decree.
A friend on this Forum owns three Slamans and tells me that
they are superior to Gibsons , and he like yours truly has had
a very large number of Gibsons of all descriptions.
I am not knocking Gibson , I reduced my collection to Six
recently. But I did consider selling one in order to fund a
custom built Slaman but it's a buyers market currently.
Just my 2p's worth.

Couldn't agree more. I own 4 Gibbys (1938, 1946, 1953, 1980) and 2 Slamans. Slaman's 'new vintage' models are exclusively positionned in the the prewar-immediately postwar market, a market niche that Gibson has deserted long ago. And Slaman's models stand & compete proudly in front of great historical Gibsons such as ES 150CC, ES 250CC, L5P/C, ES350 Barney Kessel etc. for barely half or 1/3 of the price.
Legally speaking, Gibson are certainly on their right to ask Daniel to stop reproducing their headstocks. They'd better contact him to build up a business with him. He's just one of the top archtops crafter around. In terms of quality and price positionning, he is way ahead of them.

Cheers.

[MaxTwang]

to pick a nit, the issue is infringing trademark not copyright. The laws governing the two are very different and both are very different from patent law. Unfortunately these three get lumped together under the silly term "intellectual property" in far too many discussions, which results in confusion and inaccurate understanding.

if you hold a trademark you are required to defend it; if not, you can lose control of the trademark through what is known as the "doctrine of laches." it doesn't matter how small the infringer might be, the holder still has to defend. so gibson has to go after quality builders like slaman who are making a tribute product to the makers of chibsons who are just looking to make a buck from the gullible.

it doesn't matter whether slaman's sales hurt gibson's- the issue is whether the trademark infringement can cause confusion in branding and the gibson open book headstock outline is one of those. The law requires gibson to defend their trademark. if they let slaman use it, they can lose their ability to challenge large scale producers over trademark infringement (say, ibanez or the makers of chibsons). Headstock design is important in identifying the product- look at the tele and strat headstocks; leo did a different design for the g&l guitars. Heritage uses a different design than gibson did (and it is a change many don't seem to like very much). D'angelico designed his own broken pediment form which identifies those guitars.

Slaman will not lose a single sale over not using the gibson headstock outline, but gibson could be harmed by turning a blind eye and letting him use it even for just a handful of guitars.

FTW!!!

Gibson isn't attacking Slaman, Gibson is protecting their property. Plenty of builders market pre-war Martin style flattops, but they legally do so by not infringing on Martin's trademarks - Slaman can build all the 'historically accurate' archtops he wants as long as he does so without infringing on Gibson's trademarks.

[/thread]

[MaxTwang]

Warmoth makes Strat & Tele necks which are licensed by Fender to use Fender's trademarks. USA Custom Guitars makes guitar necks which are not licensed by Fender.

The pics on the left are Warmth, USA Custom Guitars are on the right: The arrows show the changes USA Custom Guitars has made to legally make necks that do not violate Fender's trademark.







Gibson is known to be vigorous in their defense of their trademarks, to avoid legal challenges Slaman should modify his designs so they are clearly not infringing on Gibson's trademarks.