U.S. Trademark of Fern Inlay Awarded to Gibson

[mandobsessed]

Ok, then buy a Gibson if that is the metric by which you judge acceptability. I guess the heart would be willing to follow "suit" so to speak. Seriously, that's the sticking point? So the strap hanger wasn't part of this deal? I judge by sound and comfort.

And I apologize in advance as to my prickliness. I enjoy seeing the progress of the mandolin" Bowlback a-oval to F with oval and f holes. I think there is more and better to come. In fact, I think the best is yet to come.

I always find it funny that almost all the mandolins you see at a BG jam look essentially the same, all slight variations on a theme. I applaud any builder who breaks the mold and tries something new...although it probably won't sell to the bluegrass crowd.

If Gibson feels they have a case with the fern and are willing to weather the bad press that the move would generate, why wouldn't they pursue action. I think this is aimed at the Asian makers that are eating into Gibson's bottom line as opposed to the craftspeople building in N America anyway.

[testore]

They should concentrate on just building better instruments rather than silly little unimportant features.

[Timothy S]

They should concentrate on just building better instruments rather than silly little unimportant features.

And more competitively priced. Going with a custom build from a single luthier ended up being cheaper than ordering a comparable model through Gibson.

[sblock]

Well,Gibson patented it for a reason...yes,at first everyone infringing will get a warning letter...then....

I think you may be confusing a patent with a trademark. Gibson has recently TRADEMARKED a peghead with a fern inlay. It has not patented it (and the peghead is not really an invention, so it probably couldn't be patented, anyway). The laws and regulations governing patents and trademarks are quite different.

[sblock]

I always find it funny that almost all the mandolins you see at a BG jam look essentially the same, all slight variations on a theme.

Yeah, and all those violins really look the same at a bluegrass jam. I mean, who can tell them apart? Come to think of it, those dreadnought guitars all look about the same. Hey, the b*njos look pretty much the same, too. And the bass fiddles, man, those ALL look alike to me. Truth be told, there is typically more genuine variety in shape among the mandolins at a bluegrass festival (A-type, F-type, oval hole, ff-hole, snakehead, paddlehead, f-type peghead, etc.) than just about any other instrument!! Reality check.

[Dave Greenspoon]

Gibson's greedy, grubby and gross grab of the fern design is outrageous. What's next? A trademark on "The"? How about the font for the script? If I ever thought I'd be interested in their product line, this action drives me away. Out of curiosity I am sending the report to my brother who is an intellectual property/patent attorney with his own firm. I'll report back if he has anything particularly interesting in response.

[drjlove]

Is this satire???
If Gibson starts suing little guys over the "Fern" peg head inlay, they must really be hard up. It'd be akin to McDonald's suing anyone that makes a breakfast sandwich over the the use of English muffins, eggs, and ham. I've been a long-time supporter of Gibson and owner of their products. But, get over yourselves.

[Marvino]

I would hate to think there might come a time that if you want a Gibson F-5, you would have to actually buy a Gibson F-5.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Dave - I agree totally with you - but. If Gibson regard any of the parts of the design of their mandolins to be their intellectual property,they can sue anybody who uses that design or 'part' of the design for an infringement of copyright / patent - sad but true, as i'm sure your brother will tell you. Maybe if the headstock shape & design as a 'whole' is patented, & i include the name 'Gibson' or 'The Gibson' in that,then any design using the shape of the headstock plus the Fern inlay,but without any ref.to 'Gibson' or 'The Gibson' would be exempt from prosecution simply because the non-Gibson mandolins don't exhibit the headstock design as a 'whole',only in part. So,was the headstock design patented as a complete design inc.the name,or was it patented 'bit by bit' ie. shape / inlay / name separately ?,
Ivan

[Emmett Marshall]

The "way" this reads to me, they also have rights to the peg head design itself?

[Emmett Marshall]

I just came across this new trademark in the "Mandolin Cafe News" section:

http://www.mandolincafe.com/news/pub...s_001716.shtml

Has Gibson trademarked just the inlays, or the entire peg head design? I did read the whole thing, but I'm still confused. The article states the inlays are trademarked now, but as I read the information further and look at the drawings it "appears" that they have included the scrolls as well. Any thoughts?

[Tom Coletti]

(Apologies in advance for 2 A.M. crassness of the highest degree...)

It says that "Gibson Guitar Corporation has been awarded Trademark #86174550 for the Fern inlay on F-style mandolin headstocks," so maybe it just means that unless it was grandfathered in before the trademark date, an F-style mandolin headstock can't have the Fern inlay without a court process server knocking on your door to ruin your day. So by the looks of it, technically an A-style headstock could have the Fern inlay or an F-style headstock can have any other inlay, but I won't be risking it for fear of unnecessarily yelling into a telephone about dead inventors when I don't have to.

Either way, this trademark seems less like a way to maintain competitive mandolin innovation and more like a middle-aged housewife getting in a cat-fight because petty Betty Bitter Whatsherface is wearing the same dress as her in the Class of '92 Reunion.

It's like Ford suing someone in 2015 for making a replica 1932 Model A sedan; even if Ford had a patent or trademark way back when they actually made the car in a large enough quantity to satisfy the demand, it would have expired by now, so it's all one big lethargic Mulligan.

Furthermore, if other people just stopped making the Fern inlay, which they will, I don't see Gibson making any significant monetary gains with this patent. I can't imagine that a lot of people would buy a Gibson JUST to have Fern inlay. And then in 10 or 20 years or whenever Gibson stops paying to renew the trademark, people will just make Ferns again like they always did, and my question then will be, "What was the point?"

--Tom

[Robb Todd]

Seems to cover the curved part of the peg head as well which will cause a few issues.
Does this mean builders like Ellis,collings, gilchrist and dudenbostel etc can't use the peg head design they have had to date. Might change the price dynamic of pre patent mandos as well if the design is thought to be desirable enough.

[Canoedad]

Any trademarks in curved scrolls have long been abandoned. But the Patent and Trademark Office just rubberstamps Gibson's claims anyway. The builders can't do anything about it and Gibson knows it. It would cost too much. But you know who could stop this silliness? The mandolin buying community.

[Robb Todd]

Seems to cover the scrolls as well, this could affect most builders.

[Petrus]

Description of 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.

Definitely covers the peg head shape as well as the inlay. But note that the inlay drawing on the image is just of a particular fern configuration and doesn't include the flowerpot or other "vine" style configurations which are easily modified. The main thing is the shape of the head itself. Other makers will just have to use their imagination in carving more unique shapes, which is a good thing since (imo) the shape is way overused by everybody who is not Gibson. But to some extend I do feel like Tom Coletti -- it's as if the Stradivarius family patented the scroll shape on the violin head!

It also seems to be mainly an issue affecting F-styles, which almost seem as if they demand this particular peg head style (Gibson hasn't patented the body scroll have they?), while A styles have more variety in head shape. (I don't recall ever seeing an A style with that particular head shape in fact.) Let's hope they don't patent the snake head!

[bribhoy]

I'm not a lawyer, but have spent a long time looking at legal contracts and I think the imporant word in the Trademark is "and". The Trademark has been granted for "...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"

So the amrk applies only if all elements are present, i.e. the curved swirls and the fern design and the seccond fern. My interpretation would be that if you only have a single fern on an f-shaped peghead, you're good.

[Petrus]

I hope that's the correct interpretation, but the language could be read as either/or: either the inlay design or the overall shape or both. But then they would have have applied for two separate trademarks maybe.

[Tom Coletti]

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...nted-by-Gibson

There's another thread discussing the scroll aspect specifically.

All in all, retrospectively calling "dibs" on a small feature that not only contributes little to the overall product but also has basically become a commonplace option in every manufacturer's catalog nearly a century later just seems like the third grade schoolyard bully showing up at a college campus long after flunking middle school and making all the graduate students rabbit-ear their pockets and surrender their lunch money. Yeah, you might get a few dimes for a bag of Chex Mix, but the backlash will be severe.

--Tom

[Bigtuna]

Seems to cover the curved part of the peg head as well which will cause a few issues.
Does this mean builders like Ellis,collings, gilchrist and dudenbostel etc can't use the peg head design they have had to date. Might change the price dynamic of pre patent mandos as well if the design is thought to be desirable enough.

I can only assume that Ellis/ Precision Pearl make Gibson's fern inlays, so I would like to think they would cut him a break. Everyone else may not be so lucky.

[Charlieshafer]

It'll be interesting to see if Gibson even tries to defend it. If I make that exact configuration, and Gibson's attorneys send me a letter, they still have to go to court if I ignore the letter. That gets expensive, and the chances aren't too bad that I'd win, as the design has almost become public domain, as was mentioned in a post elsewhere regarding this subject. The comical side of this is that it has no financial ramifications for Gibson or others, it just makes them look foolish. The pegheads that are out there aren't going away. Experienced buyers aren't going to be swayed one way or the other, and newer buyers of mandolins usually look PacRim due to costs. It'll be the independent musician's badge of honor to go up on stage with anything other than that headstock and peghead.

[PJ Doland]

I hope to God they trademarked the shape. Maybe other makers will stop duplicating a design that's so prone to breakage.

Good riddance.

[T.D.Nydn]

Gibson did this not to make money,,but so others won't make money.the over saturation of makers and fern copiers finally reached the top for them I imagine.they are trying now to protect what's theirs,and I don't blame them.ive had copyright problems before in the past,people are quick to jump on someone else's idea to make money.the entire F design is gibsons and they should patent it.if you think about it,everyone who makes a F mandolin is essentially trying to make a Gibson design,,if you came up with an oringinal mandolin design,you would patent it and protect it also I'll bet.

[HoGo]

Gibson did this not to make money,,but so others won't make money.the over saturation of makers and fern copiers finally reached the top for them I imagine.they are trying now to protect what's theirs,and I don't blame them.ive had copyright problems before in the past,people are quick to jump on someone else's idea to make money.the entire F design is gibsons and they should patent it.if you think about it,everyone who makes a F mandolin is essentially trying to make a Gibson design,,if you came up with an oringinal mandolin design,you would patent it and protect it also I'll bet.

Of course you have right to get your design trademarked, but doing so after almost hundred years is silly (I wonder how the US patent office reviews such old things, but I've seen some really odd patents issued by them, the law is probably quite outdated...). There are many dozens of copies per one real Gibson in hands of musisians so they came 80 years too late. But their whole policy seems to evolve in wrong direction... They already dropped banjo line, it's only matter of time when they do the same with mandolins (like they already did with Flatiron). Their workmanship went really downhill in last few years and with ever growing competition this move is not going to save them.

[choctaw61]

Uh oh! Has the mandolin god offended his mass followers and worshippers?Lol.Do we not claim he is creator of THE SCROLL! Do we not call it THE GIBSON FERN! It is after all THE GIBSON! By our own confession we have confirmed what the mandolin god claims to be true.Imagine that!! Wow 21st century corporate world.GREED?