Re: U.S. Trademark of Fern Inlay Awarded to Gibson
Back in post 94 NoNickle wrote:
What I really think is behind Gibson's play here is making sure that some troll doesn't sneak one by them and beat them to the PTO on the Fern mark and then ask Gibson to pay a fee to buy their own property back. In Gibon's defense, it could be something as simple as: "Hey, this is ours, let's just put everyone on notice that we own it."
I suspect that's probably closer to what is driving this than anything else. This isn't going to diminish the competition, nobody is going to stop building mandolins because they can't use the fern inlay on a scrolled headstock.
Many years after the flowerpot and bell shaped truss rod hullabaloo you can still buy flower pot inlay and bell shaped truss rod covers. Most big builders simply designed around the problem. I'm sure they didn't lose any customers because of it.
The mandolin business is small potatoes for Gibson. I'm sure that Henry sits back and cringes over the things that weren't done in the past to protect the Gibson intellectual property but the vast majority of the things that Gibson developed that now define the market are well beyond their grasp. Others are building entire lines that use older Gibson brand names. That has to create some concern in their minds and I believe your seeing a reaction to that.
In the end even with the nashing of teeth this will have as much effect on things as the flowerpot and truss rod cover. Very little.
"It's comparable to playing a cheese slicer."
--M. Stillion
"Bargain instruments are no bargains if you can't play them"
--J. Garber
Bookmarks