Heritage vs Gibson

[Will Whateley]

Thought some here might be interested in this article:

Law360 (June 7, 2022, 9:44 PM EDT) -- A federal judge in Michigan said the company that owns the design of the iconic Gibson guitar will have to face antitrust claims from a longtime rival founded by ex-employees, repeatedly calling Gibson's trademark counterclaims "objectively baseless."


The Monday ruling from U.S. District Judge Hala Y. Jarbou marked another loss in Michigan federal court for Gibson Brands Inc., which was picked up New York private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. in 2018, in its legal fight with the Kalamazoo-based Heritage Guitar Inc.


Heritage hit Gibson with a declaratory lawsuit in 2020 following a stream of cease-and-desist letters that had ended the 29-year legal peace between the two brands. Heritage was founded in 1985 by a group of Gibson employees who sought to "carry on the tradition of hand-crafted guitar-making" after Gibson moved its factory from Kalamazoo to Nashville.


In 1991, the companies signed a settlement that ended the first round of trademark disputes that had followed. Gibson's lawyers had responded to this lawsuit by claiming Heritage's guitars did indeed infringe marks the company owned.


Judge Jarbou disagreed.


"Other than colorfully characterizing Heritage's arguments, Gibson does not explain why the Heritage guitars that Gibson is now claiming violates the settlement agreement and infringes on the Les Paul ... body shape trademarks," she wrote. "Based on the plain language of the agreement, Gibson's interpretation is objectively baseless."


"Objectively baseless" could actually describe a lot of Gibson's legal activity lately, the judge wrote, adding that such claims "dominate Gibson's counterclaims and pre-litigation conduct."


In their counterclaims, Gibson's lawyers had also targeted Heritage's use of a photo of the company's Michigan factory, which features a smokestack that bears the word "GIBSON" on it. But these claims had a little more success with Judge Jarbou, who called them "a basis for a weak, but not objectively baseless trademark infringement claim."


The ruling also looked at some of Gibson's activities outside the courtroom.


A year after the lawsuit was filed, Gibson "allegedly terminated a profitable contract" with a Singaporean company called Swee Lee, which Heritage's lawyers call "a sister company" of Heritage; a different Singaporean company called BandLab Technologies owns a significant chunk of both of them. In an amended complaint, Heritage's lawyers added that Gibson was breaking antitrust laws by leaving the Indonesian market entirely "to coerce the shared owner of Swee Lee and BLT to exit Heritage from the relevant markets in the United States."


The judge already ruled in December that she would be interested in possibly sending those claims to a jury, but Gibson's lawyers decided again to argue that the alleged dealing "does not qualify as predatory or anticompetitive conduct."


Judge Jarbou didn't budge.


"After a reexamination of the [latest complaint], Heritage plausibly alleges a refusal-to-deal claim as it relates to Gibson's conduct involving Swee Lee," she wrote.


Representatives for both parties didn't return requests for comment.




The case is Heritage Guitar Inc. v. Gibson Brands Inc., case number 1:20-cv-00229, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

[jads57]

My favorite comment was a Judge who said. “ A person who can’t tell the difference between a SC PRS and a Gibson Les Paul should be hit over the head with a Hondo ll” Lol.

[deacon Mark]

The best solution really is to have at least one of each guitars. Get a Gibson and get a Heritage then you probably will not get sued and possibly be in the best position. Both guitars are American made instruments and have and will stand the test of time. But in case you hedging anything I think Heritage Guitars clearly are under valued compared to Gibson. Gibson's are going to have a premium price and you might find something better in a Heritage for less money. Hopefully again no one will take you to court in the process.

[Litterick]

More on Guitar.com

Gibson’s response argued that its claims were not baseless. For instance, it referred to Gibson and Heritage’s 1991 settlement agreement, giving an example of how Heritage could have “unreasonably” interpreted the agreement, opening the door to fair trademark claims.

Jarbou dismissed this argument, writing that: “Gibson’s interpretation is at odds with the plain language of the agreement and would render meaningless portions of [the agreement]”. She added that Gibson did not explain why the Heritage models that Gibson now claims violate the agreement are not protected by the clear wording set out in said agreement.

[73Fender]

So the men in the black helicopters will not be coming to take my Heritages? Excellent.

[deacon Mark]

[QUOTE=73Fender;1201954]So the men in the black helicopters will not be coming to take my Heritages? Excellent.[/QUOT
When they come to take my Heritage I will tell them no. However if they can play Unit 7 and sound like Wes, then I will allow them to play it for a bit. But no you are not taking mine. It is an original American guitar. Defund the black helicopters!