-
-
09-23-2022 10:28 AM
-
Litigiousness is simply not a good look.
-
Gibson needs to let it go. But, lawyers gots to be paid, and lawyers do what lawyers do...Sue, sue and sue again. Rinse and repeat.
-
Originally Posted by Gitfiddler
Tell your kids to become engineers, not lawyers. They will have a happier and more profitable career.
-
Gibson won its case against Dean, so doubtless feels emboldened.
I know of no other industry in which competitors copy the leaders' products exactly. In the case of Heritage, some former employees bought their former workplace and carried on doing what they had been doing, regardless of intellectual property concerns. But many other manufacturers, with no connexion to the originators, copy the guitars introduced in the 1950s by the two industry leaders. Most electric solidbody guitars are copies of Gibson and Fender designs. Imagine if the automotive industry were like that.
-
Originally Posted by NSJ
Originally Posted by Stringswinger
My GF’s daughter just graduated from law school and is starting a practice in rural western Nebraska as a public defender. At least her husband is an engineer, cause it’s doubtful she would make much money in the near future defending people accused of selling meth without a license.
Originally Posted by Litterick
As the article points out, design elements are covered by copyright law, but functional elements like a cutaway are covered by patent law, which has an expiration date. I think Gibson’s case is rather weak, but I’m not an attorney, though I have watched a lot of LA Law and Better Call Saul.
-
Originally Posted by Litterick
-
Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
-
Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
The case is complicated and the Forbes article is not very helpful. The cutaway is not patented. Gibson failed in its case against PRS because the court found the cutaway is functional and should not be trademarked:
The Circuit Court examined all of Gibson's theories of customer confusion (initial interest, Post-Sale, and the hybrid 'Smokey- Bar Theory') and focused most of its analysis on the theory of initial interest confusion...In supporting its position the court noted that, functionality being a key concern to a manufacturer, there are a very limited number of shapes in which a product can be designed. Furthermore allowing such product design trademarks would allow a manufacturer to corner the market based on a design that is simply functional.'
The current state of the Gibson vs Heritage dispute is not mentioned in the Forbes article. Fortunately, Guitar.com has been paying attention:
Gibson must face antitrust litigation as part of its legal battle with Heritage Guitars, a Michigan judge has ruled.
Judge Hala Y Jarbou ruled against Gibson’s motion to dismiss Heritage’s Second Amended Complaint, which introduces a new antitrust aspect to the case – essentially accusing Gibson of attempting to monopolise certain aspects of the guitar market. The complaint alleged that Gibson is doing this via its trademark litigation threats against Heritage, and by cancelling a contract with Singapore-based musical instruments retailer Swee Lee. Swee Lee is a retailer that, along with Heritage, is part of Vista Musical Instruments, a division of Caldecott Music Group (formerly BandLab Technologies). Heritage alleged that the contract’s cancellation was done solely to punish BandLab/Caldecott, and hence force Heritage to withdraw from the US guitar market. These claims of monopolisation join the “declaratory and injunctive relief” Heritage is seeking from Gibson’s threats of trademark litigation. As part of this legal battle, the previously confidential 1991 settlement agreement between the two brands – one that sets out how Heritage can continue to make guitars similar to Gibson’s without threat of litigation – has been made public, due to its relevance to the case.
-
So is this Apple Against Microsoft or Apple Against Samsung all over again?
But, lawyers gots to be paid, and lawyers do what lawyers do
-
It's a litigious world.
I wonder if clarinet, piano and accordion manufacturers run into patent litigation. I would be dismayed particularly if that were true with violin producers.
Here's a different type of legal action involving the used Steinway market.
Steinway & Sons Threatens Legal Action Against Owners of its Pianos
– Park Avenue Pianos | Steinway Piano Reseller
-
Originally Posted by RJVB
-
Wow Marty what a great point…. Visual and key operation differences between Buffet, Selmer or LeBlanc clarinets are close to non existent. Same with concert grands from big and small names.
My usual rant… Gibson ain’t no guitar company it’s an investment vehicle.
jk
-
Originally Posted by Litterick
-
Originally Posted by Marty Grass
OTOH, Gibson is re-litigating the idea that the shape of their guitars is a trademark and Heritage is violating that trademark by making guitars with the same shape. Gibson lost a case based on that principle to PRS and settled one with Heritage on terms favorable to Heritage. They did lose the Dean case, but we’re awarded trivial damages because they couldn’t show that they were harmed.
That’s really the heart of the matter - no guitar that clearly bears another company’s branding and looks different in other ways is costing Gibson any sales because people are confusing those guitars with Gibsons.
-
MG,
That Steinway story is nuts. It makes me think of this old Lawyer story:
There was a carpenter in a small town. He had lots of work. One day, another carpenter moved into town, and soon, the first carpenter lost half of his business, the new carpenter taking half of the available work.
There was also one lawyer in this town. His business struggling. One day, another lawyer moved into town, and soon, the first lawyer's business doubles.
I agree with SS. Too many lawyers.
-
Originally Posted by John A.
Or imagine the car industry if Steinway manage to set a jurisprudence. How many cars are repaired or upgraded with non OEM parts, which are usually cheaper and not seldomly better?
This reminds me of one of Tolkien's stories where a dwarf explains how the axe he wields is still his forebear's axe despite having received a new hilt, probably a new blade, etc.
-
Gibson is no longer Gibson and Heritage is no longer Heritage. The firms that made guitars and little else are now branches, owned by private capital and a real estate corporation respectively. One of the revelations of this case is the confidential agreement between the owners of Gibson and Heritage. At one stage, they were planning to realise the real estate value of the Parsons Street factory, to build apartments, retail outlets and hospitality and entertainment venues, on a Gibson theme.
The old factory would be a tourist destination: Me and You in Kalamazoo.
-
Originally Posted by John A.
I am intrigued by the Appleton guitar that Gibson copied—referenced in the Forbes article. Seems he would have had a slam-dunk case if he could have gotten a good lawyer.
Re’ Heritage guitars—it seems they were allowed to operate on a contractual basis with the knowledge that they wouldn’t really undercut Gibson’s core business or profits. But that was a long time ago, and gentlemen’s agreements don’t seem to last too long these days. Or maybe any day.
-
Originally Posted by Gitfiddler
Humiliating Confession
Yesterday, 01:31 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos