 |
|
|
     
|
| |
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Who's next? (Gibson/PRS lawsuit)
|
Rick Turner
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 06:13 PM
   
But could Gibson go after all the F-5 copy cats? I know that's an 80 + year old design, but there sure are a lot of mandolin builders making dead-nuts copies out there...What's the cut-off on trade mark and trade dress? This isn't necessarily a patent issue as utility patents are only good for 17 years. I'm not sure on design patents. But can you trade mark something years after releasing it as a commercial product available over state lines? Dave Berkowitz, you've done legal stuff...Whazzup? |
celticman
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 06:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Big Joe:
Gibson has always been diligent about protecting its legal properties. There have been a number of suits and they have been very sucessfull at thier effort. In the body shape contest between Gibson and others is not just the body shape, but the carved top that is a part of the design. No one else thought of that before Gibson and Gibson also has some particular designs on the peghead. Gibson prosecuted this same argument against the pac rim builders a number of years ago also. If you notice, there are some les paulish instruments, but they are not real close in design. Had PRS been diligent to make an instrument that was not such a clone they would have been in good shape. However, they did not and they have born the brunt of the issue and that will likely stand if previous results are any indication. I have said this in the Mandolin Cafe about the flowerpot that if a builder is gifted and artistic enough to build a good instrument, he is good enough to not clone someone elses work. THe argument that Gibson stole Martins design is quite false. There are so many differences as to not even be considered similar instruments. Gibson built flat top instruments similar to modern day guitars long before others were doing so and they did design the modern arch top. No matter who did what, the bottom line is some companies have protected their rights and others did not. Those that did have an obligation to the public to protect those assets and defend them as needed. Let PRS and other clones do their own thing and Gibson will be happy for them.
whoa, how many gibsons do you own big joe? gibson will more than likely loose in the appeal courts. they will have thier trademark tossed out, and people can go on making vastly improved versions of so called "gibson ideas". if gibson spent half the money on their guitars that they do on attorneys, nobody would buy the "copies" because gibson would be superior. however, they don't and because of this, people decide to make much better versions of the guitars. |
JM
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 06:45 PM
Is White House TN. anywhere close to Nashville??  [This message has been edited by JM (edited 03-15-2004).] |
dberkowitz
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 06:59 PM
Rick I spent my time in matters involving chemical products liability and industrial hygiene, not patents & trademarks. I did a project for several weeks which basically allowed me to learn some of this stuff, but I believe, unlike a Patent, a Trademark is indefinite. It never enters the public domain. For example, Mickey Mouse will never enter the public domain.From the USPTO Website: "A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others." "Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. " From the USPTO website regarding the longevity of Trademarks: "Rights in a federally-registered trademark can last indefinitely if the owner continues to use the mark on or in connection with the goods and/or services in the registration and files all necessary documentation in the USPTO at the appropriate times." A Patent, on the other hand: "The term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions." These are just the basics. I haven't read the opinion (and I don't believe the final opinion has been filed), so I don't know what code the Judge cited in making his ruling and what code might weigh in here that favored PRS. |
Jeff Hildreth
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 07:50 PM
Over on the Banjo Hangout Discussion group one guy is raggin on another for making a thin wall block banjo rim.. implying he is ripping off another guy who apparently is in the process of trying to protect the idea/designWhat is absurd is that the guy doing the bitching has been a Gibson Banjo copiest for years : ) So when and where does this stop Given Gibsons (Henry's) mindset I would not be surprised if they/he went after the F clonoids the Mastertone copiests even down to the inlays etc... And now there is a new take on the BAll Bearing Banjo
Like Rick and others what I don't get is that copying or making takeoffs and knockoffs for years was ok... now it isn't
And the real baffler is the trademark application WAAAYY down the road.. I mean the gates been open and the cows are long gone Does not that by itself make it public domain I am not an attorney but last night I did stay at... Again my take is that if a company cannot take a fair share of the market thru quality and value they will go thru the back door My my .... reminds me so much of the car biz...
Does anyone recall the story of the flap between PAckard and Buick over the grille design of the late 30's
JJH
|
Big Joe
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 08:46 PM
Actually Gibson did not patent the F5 design or trademark it but they did the flowerpot. Who knows why they did what they did in the early parts of the last century. They have already defended with success several of their designs. Henry continues to build one of the premier products on the planet partially because of his insistence that his product be his and not some other builder. If the "other builders" are that good, let them come up with their own product and see how good they really are. So far they have not done it with any degree of success. Maybe they just aren't as talented as they wish others to believe. The wonder of the free market system is that anyone can join in with their own product and let the marked decide who wins. So far the winners have been few and far between. Not becuase I say so, but because the buyers vote with their pocket book. On the other hand, there is plenty of room in the market for many builders. Each can bring their own thing to the plate and there is some kind of market for each of them. I'm glad there are many choices. I love my L5 and my F5 but sometimes I like the custom made guitars I have too. Different strokes for different folks. But, there is no need to steal what Gibson owns or Fender or Martin or others just to make a profit off the backs of the people who own those properties and the rights to them. The real issue is not one of big business stepping on anyone, but rather the theft of ones property. I don't want anyone breaking into my house and taking what is mine. If I wish to give it to them that is my right, but it is not their right to just take it. The infringement on patents and copyrights and trademarks is just the same. The seemingly innocent download off the internet of ones song that has been copywrited without royalties paid to those due them is the same kind of theft and putting many good people out of work. If you don't like the price of CD's don't buy them, but don't steal them. The same for any intellectual property. Will Gibson continue its victorious court struggles for its properties? That is impossible to predict with any certainty the way the courts seem to make decisions any more, but if the past is any indication, they will continue to win these type cases and those who steal from them will be stopped. |
Jeff Hildreth
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 09:23 PM
Reference the F model mandolinIf Gibson can trademark the Les PAul shape many many years after the fact and after years of "free" use by other builders
what is to prevent them from doing the same for the F mandolin and the MAstertone banjos.. I respect the rights to a design but fail to understand the long delay aspect... As to original designs for mandos there are a couple of folks out there doing some cool stuff... I admire them for not following the sheep.... Always wondered about the trend to make exact copies of XXX ..and look how many there are... say D-18 or D-28 or F-5
or Strad... Now what if.. Strads decendents decided to trademark the Strad shape and F hole design etc... jjh |
booinec
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 09:28 PM
If memory serves me, didn't Alan Sherman (of Camp Grenada song fame) try (unsuccessfully) to copywrite the note B flat?
Seems an apropos recollection.
Wonder if he wrote any of his songs using a Gibson.
|
gaeger
Member
|
posted 03-15-2004 09:58 PM
Aside from the value of the arguments on each side of this case, I wonder whether in the end Gibson will find that its defense of the trademark will have been worth the apparent enmity that it has aroused. |
bobore
Member
|
posted 03-16-2004 01:03 AM
I'm too lazy to read all these posts this late at night, so forgive me if I've missed a point already made. I noticed that one of the early posts states that Fender stole their headstock shape from Bigsby. Leo absolutely denied this. But I'd have to say the body of Merle Travis' Bigsby made in 1948 sure does remind me a lot of a Les Paul! So did Les see Merle's guitar and say "that's what I'm after?" - and then Gibson asks Les what shape he wants? Come to think of it, did I read somewhere that Les flatly denies that Bigsby influenced his design, too? Just for fun, maybe Bigsby should sue both of the big boys for a cut of all past profits realized from borrowed Bigsby designs. Seems only fair. |
jdd
Member
|
posted 03-16-2004 02:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Turner:
So who is next? ... and then all the Asian knock-offs...
Which might make me think that they're suing PRS because they are a target that can be sued--no way they're going to dent the market for asian copies and put that genie back in the bottle! |
DaveWendler
Member
|
posted 03-16-2004 02:28 AM
Just for fun, I put the two earlier photos together, and resized the PRS, trying to match the scale length. They both look like solid body electric guitars. They both have carved tops. Both have two pickups with a toggle switch. Both have beautiful curly maple on the top. Both have a "sunburst" finish. And I make the assumption that basic construction is maple over mahogany. My observations: The body profile shape is different. The top carve is different. The control layout is different. The bridge is an entirely different design. Of course, I'm not Judge Haney.... If this is allowed to stand, it sets a VERY DANGEROUS precedent...with round after round of "trademarks" followed by lawsuits. Henry Juskiewicz knows EXACTLY what he is doing; if the trademark issue stands on this guitar, you will see him "trademarking" the L5, the ES175, the ES335, the J200. While these trademarks won't effect instruments already built, he's putting an ENTIRE industry on notice that he'll be able to run you out of business LEGALLY without competition ever becoming involved. He chose PRS not because they were making an exact copy, but because IF the lawsuit stands, there are enough differences between the two to allow him a VERY WIDE latitude in choosing subsequent victims. As you attorneys already know, a precedent carries weight, particularly if it's backed up by the appellate court. As I stated before, he's a very smart fellow. Dangerous too. I'm all for one retaining legal ownership of their intellectual property; but I can see my livelihood and those of countless other guitar makers in jeopardy over this issue. 
|
Fingertwister
Member
|
posted 03-16-2004 02:59 AM
Wonder who's in charge of Gibson PR? Their job must surely be on the line! & how long before someone comes & confiscates my Larrivee parlor for being illegal? What a world.. |
dberkowitz
Member
|
posted 03-16-2004 03:49 AM
Dave look at the Gretsch duo jet 6128 for a body comparison. I couldn't figure out how to post the photos. --db |
celticman
Member
|
posted 03-16-2004 05:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by DaveWendler:
The body profile shape is different. The top carve is different. The control layout is different. The bridge is an entirely different design.If this is allowed to stand, it sets a VERY DANGEROUS precedent...with round after round of "trademarks" followed by lawsuits. Henry Juskiewicz knows EXACTLY what he is doing; if the trademark issue stands on this guitar, you will see him "trademarking" the L5, the ES175, the ES335, the J200. While these trademarks won't effect instruments already built, he's putting an ENTIRE industry on notice that he'll be able to run you out of business LEGALLY without competition ever becoming involved. He chose PRS not because they were making an exact copy, but because IF the lawsuit stands, there are enough differences between the two to allow him a VERY WIDE latitude in choosing subsequent victims. As you attorneys already know, a precedent carries weight, particularly if it's backed up by the appellate court. I'm all for one retaining legal ownership of their intellectual property; but I can see my livelihood and those of countless other guitar makers in jeopardy over this issue.
i agree with you! these two guitars are NOT identical. if this holds up, the future could be very grim for many companies. better get your santa cruz H-13 while you still can........... |
Contact Us | Acoustic Guitar Central
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c
|
|
|
|
|
|
