Gibson Trademarking the F-5 Body Shape??

[atbuckner21]

A good friend of mine is a really respected luthier in middle TN. He told me that the overall Gibson reputation among the luthrie community is declining because of moves like this. Couple that with ridiculous price increases without quality improvements, and you have a recipe for trouble. Gibson was the standard bearer for so long, but moves like this turn me off to the maximum level. Rather than work toward inventing a time machine to rescue lost causes, perfect your current model, service those who love your product, and uphold the tradition of excellence created 100 years ago.

[JeffD]

This could be interesting to say the least. As an extreme, if granted; what would be the alternative to the F5 style? Builders shifting to 3 point designs?

It won't change a thing, likely. I don't think Gibson has any intension of stopping anyone from doing anything - except claiming it was their idea. My perception is that this isn't intellectual property protection as much as legacy protection.

[TEvans]

It looks like according to this document that Gibson didn't show enough evidence to gain the trademark.

So that's it then, yeah? It has already been denied?

[FLATROCK HILL]

It won't change a thing, likely. I don't think Gibson has any intension of stopping anyone from doing anything - except claiming it was their idea. My perception is that this isn't intellectual property protection as much as legacy protection.

No way to know for certain (yet) if you're right about that, but I think you are. It seemed to me at first (Fern/Headstock issue)to be a petty effort on the part of Gibson to thwart competition from the little guy. The more I've read though, it looks like they just want to head off any one else from claiming trademark rights to what really is rightfully a Gibson design.

It looks like according to this document that Gibson didn't show enough evidence to gain the trademark.

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer...Index=3&page=1

The way I read it, this is just a step in the process. Maybe I missed something but I don't think the issue is a lack of evidence, but that the design description was too vague.

[Isaac Revard]

I think the father of bluegrass said it best.

[atbuckner21]

Mando_Zeek, you just dropped the mic.

[DWM]

One of the things I consider when I decide who's instrument I'm going to buy is the ethics and business practices of the company making it. My local music store (not a mandolin dealer) tossed Gibson several months ago because of their completely unreasonable practices. Today there are so many alternatives to all the instruments Gibson makes that its pretty easy to go elsewhere.

[atbuckner21]

DWM, I agree completely. When you have people like Girouard, Ellis, Pava, Collings, etc., all of which are ran/owned by incredible people who treat not only customers, but competitors with respect, it's tough to purchase an instrument from someone who doesn't (or at least doesn't appear to).

[Spruce]

One of the things I consider when I decide who's instrument I'm going to buy is the ethics and business practices of the company making it. My local music store (not a mandolin dealer) tossed Gibson several months ago because of their completely unreasonable practices. Today there are so many alternatives to all the instruments Gibson makes that its pretty easy to go elsewhere.

Try being one of their vendors sometime....
No, don't...

I can't believe it's been 30 years now....

[G7MOF]

The mark consists of the uniquely shaped three-dimensional configuration for the body portion of the mandolin with a curved base, rounded body shape, with a top and bottom point at the right of the mandolin body and stylized ornate scroll design at the top left of the mandolin body!

Good job I'm left handed, It doesn't apply to me then!!!

[StuartE]

The document referenced on the MC front page is, in part, a response to the refusal by G. Fisher, if I am reading things correctly.

[OldGus]

I think trademarks should be reserved for inventors only, they bought the company including it's patents but not it's unpatented designs. They themselves are copying the inventors who held trademarks only on certain aspects of design...Maybe Martin could patent the dreadnaught guitar in the case of this passing...Gibson makes those.

[Stephen Perry]

The way I recall trademark law is that if a trademark, whether registered or not, becomes dissociated from the originator or rights holder, such that the relevant consumers no longer associate the mark with the particular producer that the mark can no longer be enforced. The mark has become generic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark came up on a quick search right then.

This would be a defense to a suit, and would be rather simple to defend. The answer to the complaint is "Yup, everyone has used this for years, don't mean a thing. For example, see exhibits A through ZZZ that show 'infringing' marks nobody batted an eye at. And see exhibit QQQQQ, the report of a survey at a bluegrass convention demonstrating that the shape is identified with the generic 'F-5' mandolin and not distinctively with Gibson." Then in discovery, get Gibson to admit knowing about all these copies forever, having admitted that in other pleadings, etc. Get an expert if required to submit a report. I suspect a motion for summary judgment after a bit of discovery would be successful.

Please, someone test this1

[Tom Haywood]

Interesting. The specimen they use for the application is the F9 as advertized by Musician's Friend, which doesn't show the Gibson name on the headstock. I would recognize that anywhere as a Gibson mandolin, not because of the body and headstock shapes but because of that specific sunburst combined with the lack of binding. Another color and that could be any builder's mandolin for the past fifty years. I think there is a lot more going on here than attempting to preserve a legacy.

[billkilpatrick]

the "the" on "the loar" will be next ...

[MysTiK PiKn]

so, in summary, lots of ideas, and no resolution? I still think it's monopoly time. You land on Boardwalk, you pay.

Or possibly the great copiers spawned a renegade factory that's going to flood market cheap. I think gibby might have already licensed all that to the ones we know. So maybe it's to block out any big players from getting a free ride on Boardwalk. And then they own the world. Little guys don't matter in this picture. It's close out time for big players /big copiers unlicensed.
What do we know about China?

[Emmett Marshall]

I find the previous poster's suspicion that Gibson is preparing to sell quite intriguing. Who would buy out Gibson? Saga? A company in Mexico? Harley Davidson? I better hang on to my "original" Gibson.

[Robb Todd]

If someone here understands the law of trademark it would be useful to get a clear understanding whether the position is that if no one objects to this and they gain the trademark they can then enforce it against anyone making F shape mandolins.

If that is the case the mandolin community may need to put something in opposition to the application rather than relying on them (or who ever owns it) not taking any action to enforce it.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Gibson can always re-assess the information given & apply for a new patent. All the wording on the document linked above,applies to that patent application only.Also,unless Gibson have applied for a patent covering 'foreign' countries,any builder outside the US is free to use the Gibson 'model',but it won't be legal to sell it in the US.
This bit's interesting :- "Can I still get a patent even if my invention has been written up in Popular Mechanics (for example)and I've been selling it for some time ?
Maybe. You must apply for a patent within one year of the first publication, public use or sale. If "some time" is longer than a year, you cannot get a patent anywhere. If it is less than a year, you can get a patent here in the United States (assuming the invention is otherwise patentable, of course), and in a very few other countries. It is a better idea to apply before the first application or sale, as most countries do not allow this one year grace period.
More reading here :- http://www.bpmlegal.com/patqa.html
Ivan

[GTison]

Ivan: a better link to the same site may be http://www.bpmlegal.com/tmqa.html#1

I believe the original post is about Gibson applying for a "trademark" . This is different from patent. But a good site for explaining that.

[JeffD]

I think its defensive. To prevent some other company trademarking it, and then limiting Gibson's ability to use it.

This can happen. There is a famous wine company that was sold to a conglomerate. The patriarch of the family, who had started the winery way back in the beginning, was prohibited from making wines in his own last name, because that name was now owned by someone else.

[Spruce]

I think its defensive. To prevent some other company trademarking it, and then limiting Gibson's ability to use it.

I think it's the residue of this: lawyers on retainers...
Gotta give 'em something to do, just like they've been doing for 30 years now...
It it still Lucian Beavers (that's from memory, which is subject to gaps these days) in St. Louis?
That would speak volumes if "yes"...

[Russ Donahue]

Bully, I say. Bully!
Heh, heh.

[Russ Donahue]

"There is a famous wine company that was sold to a conglomerate. The patriarch of the family, who had started the winery way back in the beginning, was prohibited from making wines in his own last name, because that name was now owned by someone else."


Bully, I say. Bully!
Heh, heh.

[mrmando]

This can happen. There is a famous wine company that was sold to a conglomerate. The patriarch of the family, who had started the winery way back in the beginning, was prohibited from making wines in his own last name, because that name was now owned by someone else.

Heck, didn't that happen to Augie LoPrinzi for a while? He made guitars under the Augustino brand because he had sold the rights to his own surname, correct?

How many times has Gibson been sold to a parent company? At least twice, right? It could happen again...