posted 03-14-2004 11:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gaeger:
I'd just like everyone to know that I recently trademarked a body style and intend to file a series of lawsuits against anyone who is 6 feet tall and weighs 172 pounds.

---

Whew! Just missed some serious legal trouble by about an inch! Or is 6'1" @ 172 lbs. too close to the "original". I don't want to confuse the consumers.

posted 03-15-2004 04:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by adaam:
I don't want to confuse the consumers.

---

I know this was written in jest but it's no laughing matter some people.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen posts to the electric boards about "What strat should I get?" or "Which Tele is most vintage sounding--Fender Reissue or Hamer T-51?"

I own a great strat made by G&L (The "L" is for "Leo" Fender) and called an "S-500."

If you want to see how little deference the market pays to Fender's pinnacle offering, just type "Strat Guitar" into the eBay search engine. Here are a couple of recent "Strats" up there:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3708389320&category=33049

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3709772341&category=2384

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3710958765&category=2384

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3710214700&category=33037

I think Gibson had the option to take legal action and they did so successfully. They didn't want buyers considering non-Gibson Les Pauls. No S*#t! This is surprising?

By the way, which "D" should I get??

posted 03-15-2004 05:57 AM               

Gibson should get the same treatment if they're willing to "copy" Fender(Epiphone is a Gibson trademark)....or MORE to the point for our interests, the groundwork of Martin.

So in my estimation, they're every bit as "guilty" of "infringement" as PRS, and should receive the same treatment, or else not cast the first stone.

posted 03-15-2004 06:21 AM               

The key is confusion of product, not duplication i.e. DVDs copied in foreign lands.
Confusion is a judgement call, duplication is not. (Windows vs. Mac OS?) At some point function dictates design parameters. Top draw the line too closly results in monopolistic pricing. Think about automobiles. How different are they really? To a group of visiting (insert name of dissassociated culture) they would all pretty much look the same, being measured by the task performed.
Perhaps more to the point, toilet paper...

posted 03-15-2004 06:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaveWendler:
This is exactly my point: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3710214700&category=33037

Gibson should get the same treatment if they're willing to "copy" Fender(Epiphone is a Gibson trademark)....or MORE to the point for our interests, the groundwork of Martin.

So in my estimation, they're every bit as "guilty" of "infringement" as PRS, and should receive the same treatment, or else not cast the first stone.

Henry J. better find some cast iron jockey shorts...he's going to need them.

---

You're confusing some general notion of fairness with a legal trademark issue. This is a lawsuit. Gibson (Epiphone) is not guilty of infringement because they are not infringing on any registered trademark.

This is really simple... Fender has no trademark on their body. They have a trademark on their headstock shape. Gibson was successful in getting a trademark on the body style. PRS copied it, Gibson sued and won.

PRS understands the trademark issue and makes no arguement whatsoever that Gibson has no right to protect the body style! PRS claimed they did not violate the trademark and the judge correctly denied the validity of that arguement. More from the press release:

Paul Reed Smith advanced multiple arguments as to why its guitar design did not violate Gibson's registered trademark shape. None of the arguments succeeded in convincing Federal District Court Judge William J. Haynes. In a 57-page decision Judge Haynes ruled "that PRS [Paul Reed Smith] was imitating the Les Paul" and gave the parties ninety days "to complete any discovery on damages or disgorgement of PRS's profits on the sales of its offending singlecut guitar."

It will be interesting to see how much Gibson is awarded in damages.

And my guess that Henry J. is sitting quite comfortably in a pair of loose fitting cotton boxers.

posted 03-15-2004 06:59 AM            

i work in the federal court system. i just looked this case up and it is far from over. the case is still pending at the district court level. it has not been appealed yet. the order everyone is talking about was entered 1/21/04 and the docket reads:

"ORDER by Judge William J. Haynes Jr.: In accordance with the accompanying memorandum, pltf Gibson Guitar Corporation's motion for partial summary judgment [61-1] is granted. The deft Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP's motion for summary judgment [64-1] is denied. The ptys have 90 days from the date of entry of the accompanying Order to complete any discovery on damages or disgorgement of PRS's profits on the sales of its offending Singlecut guitar. The accompanying memorandum shall be filed and remain under seal pending further order of the Court."

posted 03-15-2004 07:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by WmMichael:
Ah...I assume that denial of summary judgement means that PRS tried to get the case thrown out and lost...

I'm betting on Gibson!

---

posted 03-15-2004 07:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by WmMichael:
You're confusing some general notion of fairness with a legal trademark issue. This is a lawsuit. Gibson (Epiphone) is not guilty of infringement because they are not infringing on any registered trademark.

PRS understands the trademark issue and makes no arguement whatsoever that Gibson has no right to protect the body style! PRS claimed they did not violate the trademark and the judge correctly denied the validity of that arguement.

[This message has been edited by WmMichael (edited 03-15-2004).]

---

I totally understand the difference...my point is: Gibson filed on their "trademark" 25 years after the instrument was originally introduced. IF(and this is a BIG IF here, as I feel the court of appeals will overturn) the decision stands, then I should hope that both Fender AND Martin finally do trademark their body shapes, and at the very least force Gibson to cease their manufacture of the "trademarked" items....as I said, what's good for the goose....

PRS made the assumption there were enough differences between the two instruments that the judge would find for the defendant. However, the judge, who has been a resident of Nashville(Gibsons home base) for all of his adult life, favored the plaintiff. No matter how much we might deny our favoring the people we know, and the area in which we live...there is a decided advantage for Gibson to be heard in it's own territory.

FWIW, I've owned SEVEN Gibsons...two Les Pauls....the first was a 1960 'burst, and the 2nd was a 68 Custom. Both fine guitars...and I've never played a PRS that I liked.

posted 03-15-2004 07:43 AM            

I say sue the whole lot of bogarts....

MArtin shpuld Sue Gibson for using the square shoulder drednaught

Torres should sue all classical makers
Santos Hernandez should Sue Ramirez

Dias and Santos and the boys should sue all the Uke makers

IS Henry going to go after all the F-5 copiests

Greed is an amazing thing

Some companies choose to boldly state that they are copying some original design.. as an example Collings.. it's in their preamble on their web site.. then according to many (and this is the rub) they do a better job of it than the originating company

There must be a reason that folks bought the PRS... my guess is that it is value.. Gibson is notoriously spotty on quality and their prices (IMNSHO) are out of line for what you get....

I also see subtle and obvious differences in the PRS
And in the COllings and Santa Cruz and LArrivee and Taylor and H&D and Merrill
and Gallagher and Mossman and the endless list of MArtin Copiests offerings..(and none is so pompous or bold to make a CEO model : ) ) taste does know bounds

Not a whole lot different than the car biz.. Lexus and the rotating headlight.. Anyone remember the TUCKER?

What fun...

posted 03-15-2004 08:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by WmMichael:
[B]I just learned that PRS is involved in yet another trademark lawsuit...

[picture of Marvin Martian headstock]

---