Gibson headstock

[Mandoborg]

Disclaimer: NO Gibson bashing, just a interesting question.

I had an interesting discussion with one of the engineers at work today on patents and tradmarks etc...I mentioned how Gibson was having 'issues' with people using the Flowerpot and how they went after PRS for the single cut guitar. He asked one of those questions that make you go ' Hmmm VERY good question ' !
What if your last name was Martin or Gibson, could you put that on your headstock ?? I personally had never thought of that....If my last name was either, i'd be bummed that i'd have to call my instruments by another name .

Jim Combra

[Daniel1975]

I don't think there would be a problem as long as you used a different script/font.

[sunburst]

I'm not a lawyer, but I have thought about that.
If Gibson or Martin has a trademark/copyright/whatever legal protection on the name, you can't legally sell instruments under that name.
If you are Fred Gibson and you build yourself on instrument (or maybe a couple) with you name on 'em? I suspect you wouldn't get in any trouble. They can't take your name away, they can just try to stop you from selling instruments under their protected name by whatever legal means their fleet of lawyers decides to use.

[mythicfish]

"What if your last name was Martin or Gibson"

I remember a Guitar/mandolin act: The Case Brothers ... Martin and Gibson.

But more to the point ... this is a pointless topic unless you're a well-known builder or a builder's lawyer.
I suppose I'd better add IMO, YMMV, LSMFT and all that rot.

[Chris Biorkman]

You guys should know that when Curt doesn't deem a topic to be worthy of discussion you are no longer allowed to discuss it.

[Walter Newton]

I think regardless of your name, when the corporate lawyers come calling you will have a very big problem...check out the story of the small computer store owner's site nissan.com (http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php).

[Bernie Daniel]

What if your last name was Martin or Gibson, could you put that on your headstock ?? I personally had never thought of that....If my last name was either, i'd be bummed that i'd have to call my instruments by another name

This is not a new problem at all. If you get into this you will find many cases (in cars, wines, paints etc etc) where an individual's last name has become copyrighted and then other persons find that they have no rights to use that trade marked name for commercial purposes -- whether it is Their (his) family name or not has no bearing on the legalities of the matter.

In the case of Martin their trade mark is CF Martin right so you might have some lee way there -- Not sure

[Rick Smith]

I tend to agree with Walter on this one. If a herd of corporate lawyers came after you it would at best be a royal pain.

[bassthumper]

i expect to be corrected if i'm wrong but was'nt JOHN FOGERTY (creedence clearwater)sued by the record company for going out on his own and sounding too much like JOHN FOGERTY?http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[markishandsome]

If your last name was Ipod, could start selling mp3 players and call them "Ipods"? Of course not. The whole point of trademarks is that no one is allowed to use that name besides you, no ifs ands or buts.

[Jim Garber]

It is pretty ironic tho if you make your millions in a business and then sell it as a brand, very often there is a legal stipulation that you cannot use your own name to start another similar new business. In the Boston area was a very successful ice cream shop called Steve's. Steve sold out and a few years later opened another ice cream biz under his last name. Makes sense tho since when you sell a biz like that you are selling the name recognition also.

[Dale Ludewig]

I guess this is a time when I should thank my ancestors for spelling our last name "Ludewig" instead of "Ludwig". And no, I don't make drums. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[mandroid]

Samantha Buck sold coffee in town here , and with all those lawyers retained on the payroll,
that was not allowed to stand.
so Sam Buck's cofee shop had to change her store name .
because Starbucks Corp. LLC, thought their customers were not bright enough to know the difference.
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

yea,
I think john fogerty got sued by the record company he left for sounding like himself again.

[mythicfish]

"I guess this is a time when I should thank my ancestors for spelling our last name "Ludewig" instead of "Ludwig""

Dale, I run into the same kind of confusion. Now I just say it was made by "some guy in Illinois". http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Curt

[Daniel1975]

Well Jim, let this be a lesson to you. Never listen to me. You'd get in all kinds a trouble running w/ me.

The best advice I can give you, is to not take my advice.

[Rick Smith]

When the Olympics were in Atlanta there was a diner that had been named "Olympic" for ages. They was forced by IOC to change their name.

[Jim Garber]

Friends of mine had a bluegrass/old time band in New York City called the Metropolitan Opry. They had bee playing under that name for quite a few years. One day my friend received a call from the legal department of the Metropolitan Opera saying they had to cease and desist using that name. My friend laughed at them and told them to get lost. I think there was little basis for anyone getting confused with the name, in that case. Nevertheless, if they wanted to get out the big legal guns, I suppose they could have.

[MikeEdgerton]

There was a person in NYC manufacturing guitars under the brand name GR Martin in the early 1900's. At the same time there was a guy named CF Martin doing the same.

I'm going to speculate it's how you use your name. Here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/01/19/offbeat.mike.rowe.soft.ap/index.html) is the story of a young man named Mike Rowe that happened to setup a website called mikerowesoft.com. He was actually fine (even though they were hammering him) until he tried to hold them up for some cash. Then he stepped over the line.

[JeffD]

Walter Taylor started Taylor Wines. His grandson, also Walter Taylor, after some family difficulties, started his own winery. Soon after, Taylor Wines was purchased by Coca-Cola, who marketed it nation wide, as Taylor Wines. The grandson was then prevented by law to make a wine using his own name.

[allenhopkins]

Interesting example: the Taylor Wine Co. is a fairly large operation in the Finger Lakes. A few years ago, Walter Taylor, one of the family, decided to concentrate on small-production wines and import French varietal grapes, and purchased Bully Hill Vineyards, breaking with the larger company.

When he started selling Bully Hill wines, he had his name on the label. Taylor Wine took him to court and got an order saying that he couldn't put the word "Taylor" anywhere on the label -- although it was his name. For awhile he sold Bully Hill bottles with his name crossed out with a Magic Marker. Walter Taylor made a big deal out of being prohibited from using his own name, and got quite a bit of publicity (David v. Goliath) out of it. (He published Bully Hill ads signed "Walter Who?", I believe.)

I haven't purchased Bully Hill recently, and don't know if Walter's name has sneaked back on to the bottle somewhere. But I think it's pretty clear that, even if your name happens to be "Orville Gibson," you can't put it on a mandolin and sell it. If you're just making it for your own use, probably not an issue, but I wouldn't be completely sure.

[Fretbear]

There is a poor fellow in Scotland (true story) named Ronald McDonald who is barely allowed to get up in the morning.....

[mrmando]

There is a poor fellow in Scotland (true story) named Ronald McDonald who is barely allowed to get up in the morning.....
The worst part is all those families with sick kids who want to stay at his house.

[TeleMark]

Wow, I wake up this morning, read this thread and immediately think "Bully Hill Wines," only to find out that there are already TWO replies discussing the same thing.

[kestrel]

I'm surprised that nobody has cited this little bit of trivia:

From Wikipedia:

"The name dobro is generically associated with the single-inverted-cone resonator design, as opposed to the tricone and biscuit designs which are both similarly associated with the National brand.

Gibson now restricts the use of the name Dobro to their own product line, but care should be taken in interpreting documents written before 1993 or from outside the US. In these cases, the terms "dobro" and "dobroist" may not necessarily refer to a Gibson Dobro. For example, consider the references to the use of a dobro guitar on "The Ballad Of Curtis Lowe" by Lynyrd Skynyrd on the Second Helping album or "When Papa Played the Dobro" by Johnny Cash on the Ride This Train album.

When Gibson informed other dobro guitar makers of their intention to reserve exclusive rights to the Dobro name, some players began to refer to their instruments as TIFKAD guitars, meaning "The Instrument Formerly Known As Dobro."

The guitar is often called "The Blues Guitar of the South."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Topics like this, with people willing to knuckle under and accept the omnipotence of "Deep Pockets" and "The Courts" scares the heck out of me. Bell shaped truss-rod covers; legally not being allowed to use one's own name, even though the family has used it - officially - for a thousand-years; government mandated warnings to wear safety glasses when using a screw driver; millions of dollars awarded to someone stupid enough to need to be warned that coffee is served hot... What's next? - not being allowed to call our mandolins mandolins, because some slick lawyer finds a way to convince some dim-witted judge that the statute of limitations has run out on the name, and The Big "G" has copyrighted it. And, all this in the name of DOLLARS.

Sixty-nine-years on this planet, and about the only thing I'm absolutely sure of, is that the human race has lost it's collective mind!

[Bob DeVellis]

There was a local music shop in this area that was owned by a guy whose last name was Gibson and he had to change the name to his first name. He subsequently closed the shop entirely. I don't know all of the details, but my understanding is that the Gibson Co. didn't like his having a shop named Gibson's, even if that WAS his name. SO, if that story is accurate, it pretty much answers the OP's question, I think.

[Darryl Wolfe]

A locally owned furniture store in nearby New Ellenton had to change their name. "Ashley's Furniture" (owned by local Ashley Smith) is now "Ashley's on Main(street)". Ashley Furniture sued them

[allenhopkins]

When Guitar Center opened its branch in Rochester, there was already an established store with that name, started by the late Eldon Stutzman, now owned by his son Dave. (Great store, I might add -- most of my accumulation of instruments comes from there.) For the first year, Guitar Center in Rochester called itself "Hollywood Guitar Center," while Dave changed all his advertising to call his store "Stutzman's Guitar Center." Now the two stores seem to co-exist, with GC using its generally accepted name, and Dave's store generally just being called "Stutzman's." No actual litigation involved, I believe.

[allenhopkins]

The name dobro is generically associated with the single-inverted-cone resonator design, as opposed to the tricone and biscuit designs which are both similarly associated with the National brand.

Gibson now restricts the use of the name Dobro to their own product line, but care should be taken in interpreting documents written before 1993 or from outside the US. In these cases, the terms "dobro" and "dobroist" may not necessarily refer to a Gibson Dobro.
Sorry to be so mouthy this morning, but BG people may have noticed that Bluegrass Unlimited magazine now uses "resonator guitar" to refer to what they used to call "Dobro."

Another generally-used musical name that may well be still under copyright is "Autoharp." Last I heard, Oscar Schmidt Co. had the exclusive rights to this name.

[sunburst]

...Bluegrass Unlimited magazine now uses "resonator guitar" to refer to what they used to call "Dobro."
Yep. First, it became "resophonic guitar", but according to Tim Scheerhorn, well known maker of Dobr..., oh sorry, resonator guitars, some organ or other keyboard company has rights to the word "resophonic", and decided to defend it, so they had to keep searching and, so far, it's resonator guitar.

[markishandsome]

All these anecdotes make copyright law sound pretty gruesome, but I'd venture to guess that they represent a pretty small percentage of such lawsuits. The laws are there to prevent fraud, ie people intentionally selling a knock-off product or service under someone else's established brand name. No one wants to buy a Rolex watch and find out a week later that it aint the genuine article. Part of having a copyright is defending it. There obviously exist unfortunate coincidences like those pointed out in this thread where someone gets sued for using their own name. But if Ashley didn't sue Ashley's they would forfeit their copyright and be unable in the future to stop someone selling phony leather couches under their name.

It may not always be pretty, and yes if people were smarter we wouldn't need so much government interference, but I suspect if all the laws went away today you'd be begging to have them back this time tomorrow.

[mythicfish]

"Sixty-nine-years on this planet, and about the only thing I'm absolutely sure of, is that the human race has lost it's collective mind!"

"We have met the enemy and they are us" - Walt Kelly

[mythicfish]

"All these anecdotes make copyright law sound pretty gruesome, but I'd venture to guess that they represent a pretty small percentage of such lawsuits."

And like many such "horror stories" their veracity may be questionable. I said "may be" so don't feel like I'm singling anyone out.
Remember the Ibanez/Norlin/Gibson "lawsuit saga" . Never saw the inside of a courtroom, and nothing to do with mandolins.

[theBlood]

Two simple issues. The right to use your given name. The right of a business to preserve and protect their name and image, for which huge investments have been made. The coincidence of a name similarity doesn't not entitle one to cash in on someone else's investment. That's theft.

On the other hand, overzealous corporate responses are a great way to ruin your PR, and usually accomplish nothing towards preserving your image. Gibson is a great example. No one is fooled by their posturing.

John

[John L]

Even using the same font may be a problem. There was a local store near my home that received a nasty letter from Herod's (or is it Herrod's?), the big UK based department store. The sign for this store used a similar font - the actual name was completely different. The store owner caved, as it is difficult to fight someone with deep pockets, even if you're right.

[woodwizard]

My two Uncles Bill & Dick Kenner started a pretty successful boat company in the 60's called Kenner Boat Co. They built 16' ski barges to over 62' yaughts called Kenner Swannee's. They sold the company and name and then started another co. called Kenner Mfg.(Not Kenner Boats). Kenner Boats went under. Kenner Mfg was handed down to my cousins who built it back up to a pretty successful bay boat builder and then sold to Brunswick who owns Mako boats, Bass tracker and many more. You probably have heard the name Brunswick before. But this time my cousins could not build boats of their own for 5 years. They ran the company for Brunswick during that time period and then started up their now existing boat company only they could not use the Kenner name this time. I think they are called now K2 Boat Co. and are begining to do pretty good due to the Kenner rep. Long story not too short ...looks like it depends on how it is set up legally. Usually big companies have big protection. Too big for one person to fight. IMHO http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[Big Joe]

You can be sure Gibson will protect its properties. They would not consider using the term "Gibson", especially if it uses a script as allowable. The same with the Flowerpots. They will defend the trademarks they have. On the mandolin the only ones I'm aware of are the flowerpot and the Gibson script logo. Any use of these is trademark infringement and could bring a very costly suit your way. I have no stake in any of this anymore, but I can assure you they take this very seriously and will defend no matter what public opinion may be.

[kestrel]

Ya know, I have absolutely nothing against the “G” company, other than the fact that their “protection” of “their” properties tactics remind me too much of the schoolyard bully, as does the Nissan thing, and the McDonald’s thing, and many, many other things today. I’m sure that the “G” company makes fine products – for a factory. And, I’m sure that the existing market has elevated their vintage products to a point where buying them, with an eye toward profit can be considered a wise thing. But, let us take a brief look at reality, here. Maybe I’ve been jaded by having lived in a time when businesses – and individuals – knew the meaning of peaceful co-existence, and depended upon their “actual” ability to provide something that was “better” than their competitor, which would, in turn, assure their success. They didn’t feel a need to destroy their competition, or other individuals, in order to continue to succeed. They (I) believed that if they built a better mousetrap, the world would flock to their door.

I know that I am an old, odd, and unusual individual, but I cannot believe that I am alone in my feelings about right, wrong, and in between. I don’t have - but if I did have - ten-thousand-dollars to spend on a mandolin, I can assure you that, merely based upon the fact that Goliath sued poor little David because he put a really stupid looking (IMO) bell-shaped truss rod cover on his mandolin, I would never buy a mandolin, guitar, mandola, mouth-harp, or dobresonatorwatchamacallitthingy from Goliath – unless it were strictly for investment purposes. If I were looking for a truly exceptional mandolin – one that was not only drop-dead beautiful, but sounded and played exceptionally well, I would easily give my ten-grand to John Hamlett, Graham MacDonald, Dale Ludwig, or any number of other builders on this board, probably sight-unseen, purely and simply based on reading what they’ve posted on this board during the two-years I’ve been here. Sure, they are trying to make a profit that is what business is all about - but it seems to me that they are following their passion – and hoping they’ll make enough to live on, without resorting to strong-arm tactics. They appear to be building instruments because they love what they’re doing – and doing one helluva job at it. I just cannot believe that Goliath’s factory is building anything better.

How many of you can honestly say that you wouldn’t revel if Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, Target, Microsponge, went down in flames, and ma and pa businesses who followed rational, humane, interpersonal business tactics came back into being. I don’t ever expect to see it happen, but wouldn’t it be nice?

Disclaimer (Disclaimers seem to be in vogue, as are mandated warning labels.): The above is merely my personal opinion, not necessarily the opinion of this board. I would be happy to instruct/inform anyone who is too young to remember when personal and business integrity were actually something more than mere smoke and mirrors. PM me. Gene

[Mandoborg]

Boy, i wasn't expecting to come back here to find 2 pages worth of notes ! I guess that's why you don't see any ' Gibson ' stoves or ' Martin ' hot water heaters etc.... ! :O)
I was VERY happy to see a good dialog on , what i thought, was an interesting question, and that it didn't sink to bashing Gibson.

Thanks to all that responded !

[barry k]

I am waiting for colleges, high schools ,a certain truck manufacturer and the American Kennel Club to tell me about my logo. Probably a few more out there too. Glad I didnt use Gi***n.

[woodwizard]

Personally I have no problem with a company protecting their selves. There are people out there who take advantage of successful companies. Stealing is stealing in my book.

[jim simpson]

National & Gumby

[allenhopkins]

But what's the point of having a trademark, if anyone else can use it? If I buy a can of Campbell's soup at the supermarket, I really want to know that Campbell's made it. If I love the soup, I may try some other Campbell's products. If I find a dead rat in it, I want to know to whom to complain. If any old company that feels like it, can put out a can of soup and call it "Campbell's," I have no information, there's no accountability, and I have no guidance in making subsequent product choices.

Of course it's unfair when a Walter Taylor can't identify himself on a bottle of the wine he makes, when his formerly family-owned company, which owns the "Taylor Wines" trademark, has been sold to Coca-Cola Co. and probably there's not a Taylor among its management. (Note: I'm speculating there, without any direct knowledge.)

And if I am named Ozzie* Gibson, and I want to make a mandolin and put my name on it -- even if it's just for my own enjoyment -- I better put "Ozzie" rather than "Gibson" on the headstock. I'll feel persecuted, but still, it makes sense in the long run. This current thread (http://www.mandolincafe.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=12;t=48780) discusses an evidently phony "Gibson" being sold on eBay; many Cafe members are disgusted at what they consider "evil misrepresentation." If trademarks meant nothing, there'd be nothing to stop me from selling whatever mongrel I had as a "special order custom Gibson F-99" -- don't be fooled by the fact it looks like a Harmony Monterey, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

* Name not selected at random: there was a movie-themed bar here in Rochester called "Oscar's." After a little unfriendly interaction with lawyers from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, it's now called "Ozzie's."

[Big Joe]

Gene...Integrity in business has always meant you don't steal someone else's property and that includes intellectual properties. Trademarks are the property of the company and they are REQUIRED to defend them. That is integrity. They do not go after anyone to crush them. That has never been the purpose in the suits of the big "G". They have only moved to protect their properties. The result of that action may mean a little guy is financially destroyed, but even then it is after they have been warned and still refuse to comply with the laws of the land. I have further stake in the big G, but I was involved in some of the issues we are talking about and I can tell you they only want to protect what is theirs, not destroy anyone.

Integrity requires the sense not to take anothers property, and when one does and they are called to task for it, that is not a lack of integrity on the part of the big company, only on the part of the theif. The same goes for songwriters who lose their property without permission or any other kind of intellectual property.

[Bill Snyder]

...I guess that's why you don't see any ' Gibson ' stoves or ' Martin ' hot water heaters etc.... ! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)
Do a google search and you will find several products that use the Gibson or Martin names. They just are not anything that is likely to be associated with the instrument builders.
And FWIW there was a Gibson Appliances. The name (as it relates to stoves) belongs to Electrolux.

[jasona]

Trademarks are the property of the company and they are REQUIRED to defend them. That is integrity.
It is also necessary under IP law as I understand it, which is admittedly not much...

[foldedpath]

Trademarks are the property of the company and they are REQUIRED to defend them. That is integrity. They do not go after anyone to crush them. That has never been the purpose in the suits of the big "G".

I think that's arguable. Did Gibson sue PRS over the "singlecut" body shape to protect their mark? Or did they do it to put pressure on a competitor who was cutting into their solidbody electric guitar business? That's a much different situation than going after mandolin copies with their name on the headstock.

[Big Joe]

foldedpath...Gibson was not concerned about loosing market share in their electric guitar lines. That market has continued to grow at levels beyond comprehension. They can sell all they can build. It was all about the "mark". Consumers always want to think there is something personal in these suits, but in a company the size of Gibson it is just business and that business is keeping what they feel belongs to them. The cost for a suit like that is greater than any profits to be realized from all the instruments the competitor will sell anyway. When one fusses about the big "G" going after someone, they always want it to be personal. It is not. That makes it even more complicated for the small guy. They don't care how big you are or who you are, if they come after you they do it with the same force they do with the big guys. The company lawyers are there just for that reason, and they are very sharp lawyers. They may get beat on occasion, but it still costs the person getting sued a LOT of money. I personally don't think it is worth the risk or cost just to put something on a few mandolins. I would rather use a distinct logo and inlay rather than risk the cost of a suit. Just my opinion and experience.

[MikeEdgerton]

I guess that's why you don't see any ' Gibson ' stoves or ' Martin ' hot water heaters etc.... ! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)
Gibson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson_Appliance) is a brand name of Electrolux. They make all sorts of kitchen appliances including stoves and refrigerators. Martin (http://www.martinarchery.com/) makes archery equipment and has since 1951. So much for that theory. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[AlanN]

I pick with a Dobro man, I don't pick with a Resonator Guitar man (sounds like a plumber, or something)

[MikeEdgerton]

Another generally-used musical name that may well be still under copyright is "Autoharp." #Last I heard, Oscar Schmidt Co. had the exclusive rights to this name.
This from Wikipedia:

The term "Autoharp" was registered as a registered trademark in 1926, and is currently claimed by U.S. Music Corporation, whose Oscar Schmidt division manufactures autoharps.[1] The USPTO registration, however, covers only "Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM". In litigation with George Orthey, it was held that Oscar Schmidt could only claim ownership of the stylized lettering of the word Autoharp, the term itself having moved into general usage. As a consequence, for instance, Autoharp Quarterly is able to register its own mark using the word autoharp in its generic sense, and Orthey instruments (and other luthier built instruments) can be marketed as "autoharps" rather than the pre-litigation "Dulciharp".

[TeleMark]

How many of you can honestly say that you wouldn’t revel if Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, Target, Microsponge, went down in flames, and ma and pa businesses who followed rational, humane, interpersonal business tactics came back into being. I don’t ever expect to see it happen, but wouldn’t it be nice?
[devil's advocate] So WalMart gets crushed. Mom&PopCo now have an opportunity to grow and expand. Suddenly they build other stores. Now they do all they can to lower prices, thereby increasing their market share. Because of their scale, LittleCorp Stores can no longer compete, and are driven out of business.

Hey, Mom&PopCo are now the new WalMart! [/devil's advocate]

Corporations are not "evil." They exist to make a profit, as do all businesses. At one point in time, WalMart WAS a small business. Same with Gibson. We love to see Goliath fall, but we need to remember that at one point, Goliath was David.

[JeffD]

How many of you can honestly say that you wouldn’t revel if Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, Target, Microsponge, went down in flames, and ma and pa businesses who followed rational, humane, interpersonal business tactics came back into being. I don’t ever expect to see it happen, but wouldn’t it be nice?
All large companies began as small companies with good ideas. I hope with all my heart to become successfull enough to incur such ire.

And it is a well known marketing technique to portray yourself as David and your competition as Goliath. We are #2 we try harder etc.

[thistle3585]

To me its simply identity theft. You use someone elses image, logo whatever to turn a profit.

What I find interesting is the builders that make a Monteleone copy, for example, and state in their description of the instrument that they are paying homage to the creativity of Mr. Monteleone, and yet they too are trading on his name, design and reputation. Maybe thats what Gibson was getting at with the PRS thing.

Personally, I don't have an answer to what is appropriate along those lines, as you can see by my instrument designs, but I do draw the line at using someone elses logo.

[JEStanek]

I was intrigued by the comment that a person wouldn't spend the money on a Gibson instrument, because Gibson sued a person who used one of Gibson's trademarked truss rod covers, unless he was buying the instrument for investment purchases. #If you dislike a policy of any corporation and feel strongly about it, you shouldn't bypass that moral filter just for your personal profit off of their name.

If you mean only buy a vintage instrument to resell instead of a recent or current one... never mind.

I think corporations should and are obligated to protect their name, brands, and products. #It's even more serious in my line of work (pharmaceuticals) where lives are at stake... and I'm not even a huge, pro business guy. #I'm a big bleeding heart. #I don't see this as a David and Goliath issue.

Jamie

[markishandsome]

People dislike Wal-Mart because they put the little guys out of business. Gibson (or any comapny) defending their trade marks isn't going to put anyone out of business unless they are foolish enough to try to fight it out in court. Someone trying to sell mandolins therefore has to slightly modify the shape of their truss rod cover, come up with their own headstock inlay, and if their name happens to be Gibson they have to call it something else. Cry me a river. If all the folks who had to close their businesses when Wal-Mart came to town had it so easy, I might even shop there (probably not).

[olgraypat]

Unfortunately, one of the problems is that if a large company with a trademark does not take steps to protect it, ie, they decide to let a bunch of little guys slide, then when some big guy rips them off, they may be deemed to have abandoned their rights. So, in a way, they are pushed into being overzealous to protect themselves in the long run.

[foldedpath]

What I find interesting is the builders that make a Monteleone copy, for example, and state in their description of the instrument that they are paying homage to the creativity of Mr. Monteleone, and yet they too are trading on his name, design and reputation. Maybe thats what Gibson was getting at with the PRS thing.

I don't know... just speaking for myself here, but the first time I saw a PRS singlecut, I didn't get a sudden flash that they were ripping off the Gibson LP, or trying to fool players into thinking it was something it wasn't. It seemed a logical extension of the PRS design. There are only so many ways to make a functional guitar shape.

[dirty harry]

Thats it, I am going to change my name to The Gibson.
Ha............ Just buy one. Or buy a mandolin from a new custom builder for the same price. That 23 Weins looked mighty, mighty fine! Any Amens out there?
Harry

[JGWoods]

If my name was Gibson I wouldn't put it on a mandolin I built. I wouldn't want the confusion.
Mine might be better, why associate it with lesser instruments?
or
Mine might be worse, and I'm not interested in damaging Gibson's reputation, nor trying to impute goodness to my poor craftmanship by the name on the headstock.

[mandomick]

foldedpath...Gibson was not concerned about loosing market share in their electric guitar lines. #That market has continued to grow at levels beyond comprehension. #They can sell all they can build. #It was all about the "mark". #Consumers always want to think there is something personal in these suits, but in a company the size of Gibson it is just business and that business is keeping what they feel belongs to them. #The cost for a suit like that is greater than any profits to be realized from all the instruments the competitor will sell anyway. #When one fusses about the big "G" going after someone, they always want it to be personal. #It is not. #That makes it even more complicated for the small guy. #They don't care how big you are or who you are, if they come after you they do it with the same force they do with the big guys. #The company lawyers are there just for that reason, and they are very sharp lawyers. #They may get beat on occasion, but it still costs the person getting sued a LOT of money. #I personally don't think it is worth the risk or cost just to put something on a few mandolins. #I would rather use a distinct logo and inlay rather than risk the cost of a suit. #Just my opinion and experience.
If it was all about the "mark" you'd think they'd be going after all the folks that are building F5 mandolins. I'm assuming by "mark" you're referring to the overall style such as the body shape,headstock shape, pick up and knob position etc. Unless Gibson had some sort of legal protection on the Les Paul that they don't have on the F5 I see no difference.

[MikeEdgerton]

The F5 has been around longer. They didn't protect it soon enough. They might still have a chance with the Les Paul body shape. It's about 40 years younger than the F shape.

[Bill Snyder]

...Unless Gibson had some sort of legal protection on the Les Paul that they don't have on the F5 I see no difference.
The F-5 dates from the 1920's and the general shape dates back further than that with the f-2's,f-4's etc.
I don't think they took steps to register or trademark that shape. They did take those steps with the name and design of the Les Paul.

[Big Joe]

Yes, it is all about what has been registered. There has been some discussion on some items that Gibson designed that could be considered a mark, but those have not been furthered by the company. What they have done is try to let people know they will protect those things that are clearly marks that are registered. On the mandolin that includes the script logo and either "Gibson" or "The Gibson", the flowerpot, and the bell shaped truss rod cover. That is all that has been asserted and that is what they will fight to protect. Should they have registered the F5 body shape? Probably, but they did not so you have free reign to build those as far as I know, but when it comes to those things they have registered, it belongs to them. Taking what they own is no different from robbing a bank or stealing your brothers wife. It is WRONG.

[Desert Rose]

Ill pass on my experience for what its worth. Working for companies like Fender, Charvel Jackson, Ibanez etc and working closely with the legal experts of these companys

If a name is trademarked and registered no one can legally use the same trademark within the Patent and Trademrk office same catagory, period

You cant make Fender guitars but you can make Fender ball point pens, Fender chile wnatever

The laws are clear and unambiguous

Case in point. When Grover Jackson sold his Jackson- Charvel company to IMC the trademarks of course went with the sale.

Grover Jackson can NEVER use his name on a musical instrument ever again, someone else OWNS that name completely within section 15 of the patent and trademark laws

Scott

[Bill Snyder]

...Grover Jackson can NEVER use his name on a musical instrument ever again, someone else OWNS that name completely within section 15 of the patent and trademark laws

Scott
No one should have much heartache with that. I suspect he understood that when he sold it.

[Benevolent Dick]

Leo Fender lost the rights to use his name for future BUSINESS use when he sold THE COMPANY to CBS.
Music Man and G&L were the names he used when he went back into business.

Doesn't matter if it's a family name or not; if someone has rights to a company name and others want to use it without permission, it's a legal issue.


Mike S

[mandomick]

Yes, it is all about what has been registered. #There has been some discussion on some items that Gibson designed that could be considered a mark, but those have not been furthered by the company. #What they have done is try to let people know they will protect those things that are clearly marks that are registered. #On the mandolin that includes the script logo and either "Gibson" or "The Gibson", the flowerpot, and the bell shaped truss rod cover. #That is all that has been asserted and that is what they will fight to protect. #Should they have registered the F5 body shape? #Probably, but they did not so you have free reign to build those as far as I know, but when it comes to those things they have registered, it belongs to them. #Taking what they own is no different from robbing a bank or stealing your brothers wife. #It is WRONG.
Regarding the PRS Single cut.
Sorry, I didn't know Gibson had the Les Paul body shape registered. (if they did/do)

[foldedpath]

Regarding the PRS Single cut.
Sorry, I didn't know Gibson had the Les Paul body shape registered. (if they did/do)

No, they didn't have it registered (AFAIK), and unless there are further developments, it looks like it went to the Supreme Court and Gibson lost:

Supreme Court Ends PRS/Gibson Lawsuit (http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/2006/PRS-Guitars-Gibson-Lawsuit.html)

The relevant text:


Last year, the Sixth Circuit ruled that an injunction should never have been issued by the lower court. The court observed that Gibson conceded that only "an idiot" would ever confuse a PRS Singlecut® and a Gibson Les Paul. Based on that concession and the overwhelming evidence, the Sixth Circuit found that Gibson's trademark case had no merit and summarily dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court's decision today leaves the Sixth Circuit opinion in place and ends Gibson's multi-year effort.

I don't think any reasonable person thinks Gibson shouldn't protect their name and script logo, and also any 100% exact copies of their products like the Les Paul. But the PRS lawsuit left a bad taste with a lot of guitar players I know because it's NOT an exact copy of a Les Paul and it DOESN'T say "Gibson" on the headstock. I'm not sure they did themselves any favors with that one.

[Big Joe]

It was not the LP body shape, but the carved top single cutaway they had registered. The argument was won by Gibson in the original case and then lost on review. I don't know if Gibson is going to take it past the appelate court or not. It has not proceeded to the Supreme Court.

It was an interesting case but only those inside the case really know the issues and the reasons for all this. But, then that is like most cases. We can speculate and we can even read the court rulings, but if we are not a party to the case we really don't know all the inside details.

[Jim Hilburn]

I haven't read this whole thread, but my little non mandolin story along these lines is about the Corr's natural soda company. They were sued by Coor's beer company because they used a similar font on their soda. Different name, different product but they were legally forced to change to block letters for their name on the cans.

[foldedpath]

It was not the LP body shape, but the carved top single cutaway they had registered. The argument was won by Gibson in the original case and then lost on review. I don't know if Gibson is going to take it past the appelate court or not. It has not proceeded to the Supreme Court.

All the online sites I found say it went to the Supreme Court and they denied review of the Sixth Circuit court decision. This info from the supremecourtus.gov site:

Orders of the Court - June 5, 2006
CERTIORARI DENIED:
05-1263 GIBSON GUITAR CORP. V. PAUL REED SMITH GUITARS

So that's the final word, as far as I can see: Gibson lost the case.

[brunello97]

<Comment removed. Violates board posting guidelines>.

[markishandsome]

IIRC, Bill Monroe used to make Bill Kieth call himself Brad Kieth while playing with the bluegrass boys. Monroe thought two Bills would confuse the audience.

[cooper4205]

I found this on WestLaw

United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
GIBSON GUITAR CORP., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAUL REED SMITH GUITARS, LP, Defendant-Appellant.


Background: Guitar manufacturer that held trademark for shape of "Les Paul" single cutaway guitar sued competitor for infringement. Following finding of liability, 311 F.Supp.2d 690, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, William J. Haynes, Jr., J., 325 F.Supp.2d 841, entered permanent injunction preventing competitor from manufacturing, selling, or distributing its "Singlecut" guitars.

Holdings: On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals, Moore, Circuit Judge, held that:
(1) manufacturer's trademark, which derived from application containing two-dimensional drawing of guitar, did not provide trademark protection for entire guitar;
(2) evidence of initial-interest confusion could not substitute for evidence of actual confusion at point of sale;
(3) evidence of post-sale confusion could not substitute for evidence of actual confusion at point of sale;
(4) manufacturer's claim that confusion was created when potential guitar purchasers would see musician playing competitor's guitar and believe it to be one of manufacturer's guitars could not substitute for evidence of actual confusion at point of sale; and
(5) competitor's guitars did not infringe trademark.

Reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions.

Kennedy, Circuit Judge, filed opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.


This is Circuit Judge Moore's opinion
Plaintiff-Appellee Gibson Guitar Corp. ("Gibson") is the owner of the mark in question, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,782,606 (the "LP Trademark"). Defendant-Appellant Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP ("PRS") manufactures the "Singlecut" line of guitars which Gibson alleges infringes on the LP Trademark. Concluding that there was no issue of fact for trial, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Gibson on the trademark-infringement claim, denied all of PRS's counterclaims, and issued a permanent injunction preventing PRS from manufacturing, selling, or distributing its Singlecut line guitars.

With respect to Gibson's trademark-infringement claim, we REVERSE the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Gibson, REVERSE the district court's decision denying summary judgment in favor of PRS, and VACATE the permanent injunction issued by the district court. We REMAND the case to the district court with instructions that summary judgment be entered in favor of PRS on Gibson's trademark-infringement claim. [FN2]

FN2. On appeal, Defendant-Appellant Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP ("PRS") also maintains that the district court erred in failing to declare Trademark Registration No. 1,782,606 (the "LP Trademark") invalid under the doctrines prohibiting protection of functional or generic marks. As we have determined that the LP Trademark, even if valid, is not infringed by the PRS Singlecut, we DENY PRS's counterclaims against the validity of the trademark AS MOOT. We also note that following oral argument and prior to our decision in this case, PRS filed a motion to stay proceedings in the district court pending the resolution of this appeal. We now DENY this motion AS MOOT.