Printable View
Not sure they have stockholders, but I’m sure they have plenty of lien holders.
And the game has changed since so many people use social media to voice their opinions. So, while they may think the bully tactic will work, we may see some new Chiefs soon. Although the corporate titles they gave them wreaks of “making jobs for your friends” activity.
It's a private corporation but they still have stock holders. Otherwise Henry would still be there. Somebody pushed him out. Henry didn't own the company outright.
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/s...rivcapId=28990
I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea if the "use it or lose it" sentiments above will hold up in court. I really have no fault with Gibson trying to protect their intellectual property. But I can say the video in the OP did not sit well in my gut. I don't want to get personal, however the camera did not seem to be Mr. Agnesi's friend.
I agree, in principal, WHAT Gibson is trying to do, but I'm not a fan of HOW they are trying to do it.
One of their employees has told me that they are planning to build a new corporate office.
That seems to be an unwise expenditure for a corporation that is emerging from bankruptcy, has closed down a manufacturing plant, and still has pending lawsuits by disgruntled creditors.
For this reason, and many others [including their relationships with potential retailers and potential customers], I give them two, maybe three years until they are once more on the chopping block.
There were a multitude of money people who bought in, including venture capital folks from what I read when the deal to oust Henry was put together. These folks want a return, like all investors. I’m sure Cesar brought in funding as well. He has worked exclusively on the funding side for various VC groups. Totally different mindset. Not sure why he’s in a marketing position now, but someone is censoring his social media activity too now.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeEdgerton
In another life I was a corporate banker. For the most part Gibson’s creditors had a lot to do with demanding Henry be removed, along with the bankruptcy process. I think the name was worth enough for others to try and save what was there. Otherwise it would have gone into liquidation.
Mark, from the video, used to work at Norms Guitars in LA. I’m not sure why they hired him, because most of what he did at Norms was make demo videos. I don’t think he has a clue what damage can be done to a brand with a 5 minute video.
What's shameful is people who are not creative enough to come up with their own designs so they take someone elses..Gibson has created some very successful designs and other people just jump on the band wagon.Whether they get anywhere or not,I think they should try to protect their creations..
So no one should ever make an F5 except Gibson? I reckon we should stop all guitar builders from using the dreadnaught, OM, 000, 00, etc. body shapes too???Quote:
Originally Posted by T.D.Nydn
The last time I checked, new Collings mandolins were being advertised at prices 5% - 10% less than equivalent Gibson mandolins. That is, if you can find a new Gibson mandolin. As far as I know, new Gibson mandolins are available only from Guitar Center/Musician's Friend and just two brick and mortar retailers.
The opening in the market for better made and quality instruments was created by the companies who initially offered these products. Gibson made some pretty shoddy instruments over the last 50 or 60 years.
If there were no Eastmans, or Kentucky’s what would folks who can’t afford $4k play? That said, there’s a lot to proving an intellectual property case. Yes, Gibson can pummel folks with paperwork, and create an annoying environment for builders. But is that good PR, and in fact, in the end, they might not prove they own the F5 trademark. It could hurt them more than help them.
I was asked to post the following information but wasn't told if I can use the author's name. I'm in Europe at the moment so possible I might not get their OK until about midnight U.S. time (because I like to sleep) so sorry, but that individual is concerned a lot of incorrect information is being posted. Only seeing this now because I got a text that woke me. If OK to share the author's name I will later.
---------
There are some basic facts that forum posters should be aware of...
1. Despite the generally understood premise of trademark law - use it or lose it - Gibson has been able to retroactively obtain trademark protection for designs that had been in use, and in some cases out of use, for decades.
2. Gibson's cease and desist letters are not idle threats. Gibson has sued numerous companies. Almost all the suits were settled - the exception being PRS, who prevailed in an appeal.
3. Gibson has been granted numerous trademarks, including the dove-wing headstock shape and the body shapes of the Les Paul, SG, Flying V, Explorer and 335 guitars. Gibson has been granted trademarks on the flowerpot inlay (1975), the bell-shaped truss rod cover (1978), and the scroll headstock with fern inlay (2015). Here are links to the website of the US Patent and Trademark office:
flowerpot, 1,008,797...
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...803:w70uy6.2.2
headstock and fern, 4,706,482...
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...803:w70uy6.3.1
truss rod cover, 1,822,637...
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...803:w70uy6.6.3
EDIT: now in posting those links I see they are no longer valid as they expire. To be continued...
This really ticks me off.......:disbelief:
Not a good look. I bought a new Gibson mando not long ago and, at a similar price point, it's not as good as my Collings mandos. Not sure what they think they *currently* have to brag about - obviously, from a historical perspective, they've been amazing with both guitars and mandos. But things change, and this does not make me a fan of their company.
The new investors will shake every tree for money. These lawsuits may or may not have merit. Even if they have no merit they will still usually get $5,000 to $100,000 from each defendant to settle so that they may avoid the higher costs of going to court. In many cases this decision will not be made by the bigger defendants but by their insurance companies. Small builders are in the worst position and some will simply take the leap into their own designs.
My experience in these matters is from a different industry but the principle is the same.
I really don't have an issue with them being pissed off. No one is taking Gils, Nuggets, or Kimble's apart and taking measurements. No one had a flower pot before them. No one is making a mandolin and putting some one else's name on it and calling it a clone. Are there instruments (mandolins) over priced? maybe? but that is because folks are paying $7000 dollars for Northfield's and others that honestly in my opinion are over priced. Again I think that a $9000 dollar price tag on a Fern is ludicrous and the fact they seem to want to fix their financial problems by selling less for more, which could be debated as a business model. However, We have are own selves to blame for the prices we pay through Eco 101; supply and demand. But.... way to many times have seen... In the Les Paul style, In the Tele style, voiced after... if we have to pay royalties for a song, shouldn't builders pay a royalty?
Gibson is the plaintiff. I think you mean the defendants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg P. Stone
Before anyone calls it out I know that a Tele would be a Fender. My point is they should do the same thing as Gibson.
Darn dyslexia, I get everything reversed. Corrected my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck3
Abbott Labs did this around 2003. They shook the tree until they made it affordable for the defendants to pay royalties. A few years later they were eaten by a larger company. But for years they sent cease and desist letters to small biotech companies, many of which filed these notices in the circular file.
The links above expired, but in the meantime, I'm curious if anyone knows if the the Patent/Trademark is for the headstock with the fern inlay only, or each either together or separately? E.g. a headstock with a non-fern inlay pattern would be included.
Here's a link to their trademarks etc: https://www.gibson.com/Registered-TrademarksQuote:
Originally Posted by Luna Pick
I wouldn’t trust something from their website. Check the US trademark database to verify who really owns whatever you are interested in. I don’t see a trademark for either an A or F style mandolin.
The last listed owner of Dobro is still Bank of America, yet Gibson’s webpage states it is theirs.
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...809:o24l8g.2.5
Stymied again by the expiration of the link. To view the tradermarks, go to uspto.gov, then mouse over Trademarks. In the drop-down menu, click on TESS, which is their search engine. Just put in the trademark number, without commas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandobar
Sorry, Walter. I checked it and it worked, but they must expire pretty quick.
Peg head and fern trademark is described as: Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a three-dimensional configuration of a peg head of a stringed musical instrument with a curved swirl on the top left and top right, and with a fern design within the peg head in the center and a second fern design within the lower portion of the peg head.
While I had seen Mark as the new face of Gibson in several videos recently, it wasn't until reading the comments here that I finally realized that this is the same guy who was in all of those "Guitar of The Day" YouTube videos for Normans Rare Guitars.