posted 03-16-2004 06:20 AM               

"Dave,

Thank you for your interest in Paul Reed Smith guitars.

PRS Guitars and Gibson Guitar Corporation have been involved in an infringement action brought by Gibson regarding PRS' award-winning Singlecut guitar. Recently, the trial judge rendered a decision in favor of Gibson. PRS Guitars is disappointed with the court's ruling that its Singlecut guitar infringes a Gibson trademark. As the court itself noted, "personal inspection of these high price guitars that are sold with clear markings of their origins would dispel [any] initial confusion." Further, the Court concluded that there are "various guitars in the market bearing the body shape similar to Gibson's Les Paul model...."

PRS Guitars is confident that its customers and dealers know the difference between a PRS guitar and other brands. Expert witnesses, guitar authority Tom Wheeler and Richie Fliegler, Vice President of Fender Musical Instruments, confirmed that PRS' Singlecut is distinctive. The case is not yet concluded and PRS expects that it will prevail on the merits, when all is said and done.

Thanks again for your concern.

Best Regards,

Jim Cullen
Customer Relations"

dberkowitz...if you can find a photo in jpeg format, it's easy to save it to your photo program. My experience with the mentioned Gretsch guitar is that while the body shape itself is similar, the Gretsch is a larger guitar, and is of a bit different construction, ie, a lammed top glued to a solid mahogany back...I'm not familiar with the current models...the only ones I've seen date from the Baldwin era or before. I've never seen a Jet model with a stop tailpiece(would be problematic with the construction style), or the typical 4 knob Gibson control configuration.

posted 03-16-2004 07:31 AM            

That was precisely my point earlier...

Again... Gibson quality is universally known to be spotty..prices are considered by man to be very high given the quality of build...

I suggest that there is little value in a Gibson except the name and the tradition..
and that with a bag over the headstock in a comparison with many other guitar brands..
there are guitars of lesser price and comparable or higher quality.

I would be reluctant to buy a Gibson based on the antics of the company alone
Silly.. don' think so...

I agree this is a dangerous precedent and methinks the judge may not be qualified (ie no guitar experience) to judge this case fairly...

Bigsby may have the "first rights" here....
but I'll bet historically in Europe one could find some earlier design elements that may have influenced the whole bunch..

Wait and see..

posted 03-16-2004 08:41 AM               

Dave,
Thanks for your email regarding Gibson. We are very sorry you feel the way you do and have considered your comments with great concern. As you know Les Paul along with his signature guitar has become an American Icon and is a cornerstone of Gibson Guitar Corporation. Our company is run by a leader who is also a passionate musician and as the company grows and brings music to people around the world, so do the efforts of protecting our designs and models. It is equally important to note that trademark/patent law requires an owner to police its intellectual property or run the risk of losing it. As mandated, Gibson Guitar, takes this very seriously.

We hope that you will continue to enjoy Gibson Guitar and that you understand a company's position in a matter of this nature.

All the best
Customer Service

posted 03-16-2004 10:37 AM            

and not even enough courtesy to have a REAL NAME attached to the letter

When I was in th car biz working the customer relations desk we had a binder of stock responses

This would be a 23B and add the tag line from 14 C

That was a non answer.

Thanks for printing it.. gives more of an insight into the wonderful world of handcrafted guitars..

posted 03-16-2004 10:43 AM            

"This is a dangerous precedent?" The Judge may not be qualified to Judge the case fairly? Perhaps some are judging the Judge, and criticizing his decision, unfairly.

Has anyone actually read the decision? Does anyone know the basis on which the case was decided? Does anyone know the Judge's experience?

posted 03-16-2004 10:52 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DGlennE:
Has anyone actually read the decision? Does anyone know the basis on which the case was decided? Does anyone know the Judge's experience?

Press releases get it wrong all the time. If anyone has a link to the decision, I'd be curious to see what actually transpired and was decided here.

---

In my letter to Gibson, I asked to read the decision. How would one go about finding it? It is a matter of public record, isn't it? Perhaps one of the attorneys among us can find it.

posted 03-16-2004 11:36 AM            

I am just interested in fairness

I was casting no aspersions on the judge

posted 03-16-2004 12:41 PM               

Thanks to mudcat over on the Musicplayer forum for this one.

posted 03-16-2004 01:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaveWendler:
Gibson's response from an email voicing my concern:

---

wow! that is amazing, i got the exact same response from gibson regarding my email to them. what a joke!

this was the automated response i got before i got the same response Dave did:

"THANK YOU for contacting the world's #1 Customer Service Team! Your email was received and has been assigned to a Customer Service Representative for review and response. We appreciate this opportunity to assist you!"

the worlds #1 customer service team, my #$%!

posted 03-16-2004 03:15 PM            

Does the judge know this
Is PRS aware of this

posted 03-16-2004 08:34 PM               

Gibson has been diligent over the years to persue those it feels has infringed upon its properties. The issue is not one of public relations, but preservation of property. If someone breaks into your house and they are arrested for breaking and entering and theft, that does not make you...the homeowner...bad for protecting what is yours. The same is true for any company.

The protection of the assets of any company are critical to its survival. Any less diligence on the part of Gibson or any other company would not be judicious use of its properties.