Are Gibson classifieds going to be banned?

[prowla]

I think the companies tend to focus on trademarks, rather than copyright.

[Delberthot]

Didn't sales of Les Pauls soar after Appetite for Destruction was released despite the fact that Slash used copies of Les Pauls complete with Gibson Logo'd headstocks?

I don't think that Slash would have been able to afford the real thing at the time so surely it was good publicity for the Gibson brand despite not actually being a Gibson. Later on they did release a Gibson version of his copy which is, again, great for Gibson,despite them actually making a replica of a replica

Edited June 15, 2019 by Delberthot

[DoubleOhStephan]

Seems the warnings were genuine... 

https://reverb.com/news/gibson-files-a-trademark-lawsuit-against-dean-and-luna-guitars?utm_campaign=gibsonsue&utm_content={{ad.id&utm_medium=organic&utm_source=fb

[Marvin]

Claiming Trademark Counterfeit is a fairly bold move, by bold I mean ridiculous. Nobody who buys a Dean thinks they're buying a Gibson.

It's a pity Gibson don't put as much effort into making good quality instruments, at sensible prices, as they do into this sort of faff.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Marvin
grammar :)

[Beedster]

On 15/06/2019 at 06:53, Beedster said:

Wanted to watch that, but get message that it's been removed by user?

Wow, now seen the video, how could anyone have thought that was a good idea?

[skankdelvar]

29 minutes ago, DoubleOhStephan said:

Seems the warnings were genuine... 

So Gibson are launching lawsuits a week or two after the webz ripped them a new one about the Agnesi vid and just as the eagerly awaited and critically important new models are shipping?

[Beedster]

7 minutes ago, skankdelvar said:

So Gibson are launching lawsuits a week or two after the webz ripped them a new one about the Agnesi vid and just as the eagerly awaited and critically important new models are shipping?

The list of corporates with leadership who 

a) know what they're doing, and 

b) give a f**k about their market

is sadly getting shorter every day

[Skinnyman]

24 minutes ago, Marvin said:

Claiming Trademark Counterfeit is a fairly bold move, by bold I mean ridiculous. Nobody who buys a Dean thinks they're buying a Gibson.

It's a pity Gibson don't put as much effort into making good quality instruments and sensible prices as they do into this sort of faff.

Wow.

After all these years, surely Gibson would struggle to claim the LP shape as uniquely their own. About the only thing they can realistically claim as their own unique trademark is the word Gibson in that type face and the name Les Paul (although they could struggle with even that).

I guess they must be hoping that their lawyers are bigger than Dean and Luna's and that they can get a cease-and-desist order until the full case is (eventually and after years of prevarication) heard. That effectively neutralises the competitor for the foreseeable....

 

[skankdelvar]

11 minutes ago, Beedster said:

The list of corporates with leadership who 

a) know what they're doing, and 

b) give a f**k about their market

is sadly getting shorter every day

My concern here is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. June is an absolutely critical month in terms of embedding the story that 'The new models / ranges show that Gibson's finally getting it right'. Instead, it's now all about lawyers and questionable claims.

Moreover, Gibson made a lot of enemies in the industry and among consumers when the company very visibly stiffed its suppliers. Going after their competitors before they have been seen to have addressed long-term issues of QC, price, value and heritage is complete madness. I can't imagine the consumer PR guys are very happy about this.

Edited June 20, 2019 by skankdelvar

[DoubleOhStephan]

3 minutes ago, Skinnyman said:

Wow.

After all these years, surely Gibson would struggle to claim the LP shape as uniquely their own. About the only thing they can realistically claim as their own unique trademark is the word Gibson in that type face and the name Les Paul (although they could struggle with even that).

Not directly related but speaking of trademarks & lawsuits, this was in the news today - 

Adidas loses three-stripe trademark battle in European Court

 https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/19/adidas-loses-three-stripe-trademark-battle-in-european-court

 

[skankdelvar]

Frankly, I think it's time that the estate of the late Mr Paul Bigsby (1899–1968) sued both Fender and Gibson.

Below: From 1947-1948 (four years before the Les Paul and six years before the Strat). Nice headstock and body shape, eh?

and this two pup Bigsby:

 

It is a fact that both Leo Fender and Les Paul knew Bigsby, sat around and discussed guitars, saw his work, etc. 

Suck on that, Gibson bread-head dudes.

[Stub Mandrel]

2 hours ago, skankdelvar said:

It is a fact that both Leo Fender and Les Paul knew Bigsby, sat around and discussed guitars, saw his work, etc. 

Suck on that, Gibson bread-head dudes.

Not likely to be a problem for Fender - they bought Bigsby from Gretsch on Jan 8 2019.

I wonder if there's a plan there...

[skankdelvar]

2 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Not likely to be a problem for Fender - they bought Bigsby from Gretsch on Jan 8 2019.

I wonder if there's a plan there...

Ha! That would be just too delicious, Fender suing Gibson over the Les Paul body shape 

[tauzero]

How close do copies have to be to be done for infringement? The Satellites and Columbuseses of my youth all looked like the Gibsons (and Fenders) that they copied, at least until you turned the Gibson copies upside down and saw the neck plates. Did Gibson leave them free to flourish as they would whet the appetite for the Real Thing  Authentic? I can't see that millimetre-perfect copies are the only ones that infringe trademark, as R*ck*nb*ck*r go after everything that resembles one of their models.

[prowla]

12 hours ago, Marvin said:

Claiming Trademark Counterfeit is a fairly bold move, by bold I mean ridiculous. Nobody who buys a Dean thinks they're buying a Gibson.

It's a pity Gibson don't put as much effort into making good quality instruments, at sensible prices, as they do into this sort of faff.

It's not about people thinking they're buying a Gibbo; it's about another company making things which look suspiciously similar.

For it to be trademark infringement, Gibson have to register their features as a trademark.

It's not sufficient for something to look like the original (that's copyright which is is different branch of law); for trademark it has to be registered, and in every country.

Normally companies register their brand logos, but some do more design features too; in particular Gibson registered their "bookend" headstock and successfully protected it a few decades back (the so-called "lawsuit").

Fender took a different approach to protecting the intellectual property (IP) and positioned the Squier brand to compete with the fakers.

 

[prowla]

5 hours ago, tauzero said:

How close do copies have to be to be done for infringement? The Satellites and Columbuseses of my youth all looked like the Gibsons (and Fenders) that they copied, at least until you turned the Gibson copies upside down and saw the neck plates. Did Gibson leave them free to flourish as they would whet the appetite for the Real Thing  Authentic? I can't see that millimetre-perfect copies are the only ones that infringe trademark, as R*ck*nb*ck*r go after everything that resembles one of their models.

Trademark is specific and you have to register the designs. Rickenbacker have their headstock, the TRC, and elements of the body shape registered.

The companies do have to show they are actively protecting their IP.

It's no different really to fake Levis, Louis Vuitton handbags, Mac clones, Concordski, and so-on.

(For Rickenbacker there is a bit of hypocrisy though, as they are now selling a treble pickup inner cover which is a straight rip-off of a 3rd party one.)

[prowla]

12 hours ago, Skinnyman said:

Wow.

After all these years, surely Gibson would struggle to claim the LP shape as uniquely their own. About the only thing they can realistically claim as their own unique trademark is the word Gibson in that type face and the name Les Paul (although they could struggle with even that).

I guess they must be hoping that their lawyers are bigger than Dean and Luna's and that they can get a cease-and-desist order until the full case is (eventually and after years of prevarication) heard. That effectively neutralises the competitor for the foreseeable....

 

If it's a registered trademark, then it is theirs.

[markdavid]

The problem I have with Gibson's approach is that there Gibson basses are prohibitively expensive (too me at least) and whereas Fender at least offer Squier Affinity, Squier VM and Fender MIM basses and offer most of their designs in each so that you can have a useable instrument at every price point Gibson offer Epiphones which range from godawful to decent with very confusing pricing to add a little more confusion.

Take for example the EB0 (or SG as they now call it) bass, the Gibson version is around £1200.00, I cant afford that and neither can a lot of people, the Epiphone equivalent the Epiphone EB0 has crap tuners, an awful pickup that sounds not even remotely like the original and is often microphonic and questionable build quality.  In short the Epiphone EB0 is not a good bass there is not way I would gig one without considerable upgrades but that is what Epiphone offer, you could argue that I could get the Epiphone EB3 but then I lose the 30.00" scale and in ant case the Epiphone EB3 doesnt really sound anything like the Gibson version so you have 2 basses one of poor quality and one of passable quality neither of which are actually anything like the original.

Now if I look around I can fairly easily find an EB0 clone of far superior quality to the Epiphone and with a proper mudbucker for a fraction of the cost of a Gibson, however if Gibson offered a better quality Epiphone version then I would pick that without a second thought

[prowla]

37 minutes ago, markdavid said:

The problem I have with Gibson's approach is that there Gibson basses are prohibitively expensive (too me at least) and whereas Fender at least offer Squier Affinity, Squier VM and Fender MIM basses and offer most of their designs in each so that you can have a useable instrument at every price point Gibson offer Epiphones which range from godawful to decent with very confusing pricing to add a little more confusion.

Take for example the EB0 (or SG as they now call it) bass, the Gibson version is around £1200.00, I cant afford that and neither can a lot of people, the Epiphone equivalent the Epiphone EB0 has crap tuners, an awful pickup that sounds not even remotely like the original and is often microphonic and questionable build quality.  In short the Epiphone EB0 is not a good bass there is not way I would gig one without considerable upgrades but that is what Epiphone offer, you could argue that I could get the Epiphone EB3 but then I lose the 30.00" scale and in ant case the Epiphone EB3 doesnt really sound anything like the Gibson version so you have 2 basses one of poor quality and one of passable quality neither of which are actually anything like the original.

Now if I look around I can fairly easily find an EB0 clone of far superior quality to the Epiphone and with a proper mudbucker for a fraction of the cost of a Gibson, however if Gibson offered a better quality Epiphone version then I would pick that without a second thought

Epiphone is Gibson's Squier - made to a price point.

If you want the real pro gear, then £1k or so ain't huge money; I know it's not loose change, but compare it to other professions' kit.

But if you take a step back and look at what you are saying, you are justifying Gibson's actions; you want one of their instruments but are buying copies.

[BigRedX]

@markdavid So you appear to be justifying IP theft just because you can't afford the real item.

However in real terms guitars and basses from the big name manufacturers have never been cheaper. Looking at historical prices lists a Fender Precision in the mid 70s (when I started playing) would have cost between $350 and $400 depending on the specification. A Gibson EB3 was $499. To get the UK prices at this time you could simply replace the $ sign with a £. In today's money that works out at £2000 for a standard spec Precision and around £3000 for a Gibson EB3.

TBH even though I think Gibsons actions are likely to be doomed to failure because of the number of years that they haven't properly defended their IP or trademarks, anything that forces other manufacturers to come up with their own designs for guitars and basses rather than boringly copying others has got to be good thing. 

 

[Nicko]

7 hours ago, tauzero said:

How close do copies have to be to be done for infringement? The Satellites and Columbuseses of my youth all looked like the Gibsons (and Fenders) that they copied, at least until you turned the Gibson copies upside down and saw the neck plates. Did Gibson leave them free to flourish as they would whet the appetite for the Real Thing  Authentic? I can't see that millimetre-perfect copies are the only ones that infringe trademark, as R*ck*nb*ck*r go after everything that resembles one of their models.

Gibson successfully stoped a bunch of Japanese manufacturers (Ibanez, Tokai etc) who were using diamond headstock logos, Gibson type script on the branding and headstock shape, as well as use of the Les Paul name back in the 70s.  It should be clear that if they couldn't claim the overall shape of the guitar then, there is no prospect of them doing so now. 

In fact Fender were defeated when they took Schechter to the Trademark appeal court in the late noughties when they tried to claim the shape of the Strat, Tele and P Bass.

[BigRedX]

6 minutes ago, Nicko said:

Gibson successfully stoped a bunch of Japanese manufacturers (Ibanez, Tokai etc) who were using diamond headstock logos, Gibson type script on the branding and headstock shape, as well as use of the Les Paul name back in the 70s.  It should be clear that if they couldn't claim the overall shape of the guitar then, there is no prospect of them doing so now. 

Actually most of the better Japanese manufacturers had already abandoned the copies in favour of their own designs about a year before the Gibson "lawsuit" and the others simply stopped selling outside of japan. 

[markdavid]

17 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

@markdavid So you appear to be justifying IP theft just because you can't afford the real item.

No not at all, I am just saying that Fender by providing products at all price points have provided ways that everyone can afford to buy a decent quality P or Jazz bass from them (even the affinity range is decent these days) which is surely a better way of going about things than Gibson have done

[markdavid]

52 minutes ago, prowla said:

Epiphone is Gibson's Squier - made to a price point.

If you want the real pro gear, then £1k or so ain't huge money; I know it's not loose change, but compare it to other professions' kit.

But if you take a step back and look at what you are saying, you are justifying Gibson's actions; you want one of their instruments but are buying copies.

I own no copies of any Gibson basses.  I know Epiphone is Gibsons Squier but the difference is that Squier at least produce versions of Fender basses that are fairly decent quality at all price points, Epiphone on the other hand!! I would totally gig an affinity Squier P or J bass, I would not rely on an Epiphone EB0.

 

[Nicko]

1 hour ago, markdavid said:

I own no copies of any Gibson basses.  I know Epiphone is Gibsons Squier but the difference is that Squier at least produce versions of Fender basses that are fairly decent quality at all price points, Epiphone on the other hand!! I would totally gig an affinity Squier P or J bass, I would not rely on an Epiphone EB0.

 

Have never tried the Epi basses, but my Epi 339 is good quality, and at 20% of the price of a USA made.  Gibsons prices are utterly ridiculous.  Even a Gibson branded hard case is more than twice the price of an Epi branded hard case.