Gibson Trademarking the F-5 Body Shape??

[EdSherry]

The Café front page has a link to a request Gibson filed back in 2014 with the US PTO to trademark the F-5 shape.

I for one do not now associate Gibson with the F-5 design (I have a Flatiron F-5 that I bought in 1984 that is my main F-5), and the avowed purpose of trademark law is to prevent consumer confusion as to source.

Whatever the merits of such an effort would have been back in the mid-1920s when they first came up with the shape, it strikes me as peculiar (to say the least) to seek to trademark the shape nearly 90 years later, after an entire industry has been built up making F-5-shaped instruments. One can lose a trademark in a term if it becomes "genericized." (Two well-known historical examples are (cellophane and aspirin.)I would expect the same would be true for a shape.

[John Soper]

Can't wait for this discussion to unfold!!

[sgarrity]

They lost the PRS lawsuit over the Les Paul body shape. At this stage in the game this seems like a really stupid move on Gibson's part. They're barely even making mandolins these days. I guess Henry just likes spending money on lawyers!

[TC-in-NC]

I saw that too. Makes me wonder if this is somehow connected to their recently obtained patent for the fern logo. Just speculating, but it seems to me that someone at Gibson is trying to find creative ways to bring in more $$$$. Get the patent, then charge folks for the right to use it. This one could get very interesting!

I'll be sitting by, enjoying my F-5 clone (The Loar) and watching the action

[mrmando]

Methinks this particular hoss left the corral long ago, but what do I know?

[fscotte]

It's public domain by now. No chance.

[FLATROCK HILL]

It's public domain by now. No chance.

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...FERN+TRADEMARK

...Just in case you were absent for this recent 8 page discussion.

[Emmett Marshall]

First the "Fern" and peg head, and now the whole body? I'm really surprised by these actions. Do you think they plan to shut down all others who are making copies of the F5? Guess my Kentuckys are going to become "outlaw" mandolins pretty soon.

[Andrew B. Carlson]

"Only a Gibson is legal enough."

[f5loar]

"Only a Gibson is legal enough."

In the USA in a court of law you can pretty much ask for anything you want. Does not mean you will get it.

[TEvans]

I guess I just find Gibson's whole PR strategies off-putting. From online dealers not being able to show the Gibson logo or show their new stocks of Gibson instruments, to the fern/headstock, and now the whole body shape.

Maybe the legal team is just bored?

[Ivan Kelsall]

Maybe the "A" style body shape next ?,
Ivan

[HoGo]

Maybe the "A" style body shape next ?,
Ivan

No, next they will patent use of guitar strings on mandolin!

Read their application:

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 and f-holes, and the shape of the the headstock with an stylized ornate scroll design on the top, as illustrated in the drawing by the solid lines. The guitar strings, bridge, and tuning pegs as shown in broken lines are not a part of the mark and serve only to show the position and placement of the mark

Looks like their lawyers don't know guitar from mandolin... What a shame!

[MysTiK PiKn]

I thought they made all the mandolins anyway. or was that epi. or was that tloa. or was that ketuky. or was that esmahn. or was it tm.

maybe patent the lute? retroactive? hey why not.

great biz model. clever marketing. huh? the mark? duh.... isn't everything manu'd in china? licensed by ? so all privates are busted?

just babbling here, maybe. welcome - to the machine.

[fscotte]

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...FERN+TRADEMARK

...Just in case you were absent for this recent 8 page discussion.

I think these are different issues. An example would be Ford trying to patent the shape of a pickup truck. But a unique identifying symbol on the truck or a Ford car could be protected - such as the Mustang horse.

And it's not just the F5 they are going after, they are seeking patents on a mountain of items, even the shape of instrument headstocks.

[Fretbear]

Hope their "Lumpy" design is safe as well.......

[Bigtuna]

Maybe the "A" style body shape next ?,
Ivan

Maybe not the body, but the snakehead headstock is likely in the works.

[barry]

"GOODS AND SERVICES CLASSIFICATION

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 015 FIRST USE DATE 12/31/1924 FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE 12/31/1924 CLASS STATUS 6-ACTIVE"


Maybe I am missing something. Obviously, the shape was used prior to this date.

[GTison]

Trademark and Patent are two distinct things. I could see where a patent on the design would be out of date, maybe. But a trademark is different. A quick look at the link below suggest that if a company has not used a trademark for 3 years it is considered "abandoned". The "snake head" would be abandoned because they ceased production for more than 3 years. However, did Gibson ever really cease production of the F5 style, for more than 3 years? I am no vintage expert, but it seems like the answer to that might be that Gibson maintained production of F5 style (shape) mandolins all the way back to 1923.
http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/...FactSheet.aspx

Some other builders out there better lawyer up and contest this such as Collings and Weber. Foreign entities who have standing should also speak up. Small builders would also be affected if this is granted. Perhaps the individual luthiers could contest it as an association to defray legal expense. The acceptance of the "fern" inlay trademark granting is proof that if not contested Gibson could be granted this trademark. 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?

[Mandobar]

Collings paid Henry years ago. That door is closed.

[thistle3585]

My guess is they don't want to collect royalties on a design. They want to sell the company and its not worth anything if their not building instruments but it is if they own the patent rights to key aspects of the instruments.

[Jim Hilburn]

They may have not made an F through WWII for 3 years but could claim a special circumstance in that case. Otherwise it seems the always made at least a few. And quality won't play into the picture.

[Capt. E]

My guess is they don't want to collect royalties on a design. They want to sell the company and its not worth anything if their not building instruments but it is if they own the patent rights to key aspects of the instruments.

Perhaps the mandolin shop is not making much money and they want to sell or franchise out the right to use the design and even the "Gibson" name to another manufacturer. It would be worth a lot of money to someone if the design was part of it...perhaps someone in China? This may be continuing effects from the Nashville flood.

[bobrem]

I am going to patent my body shape.

[G. Fisher]

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