Look out for JHS pre-lawsuit guitars!

guitars4you

more info if you want it - http://mmrmagazine.com/5073-jhs-and-gibson-return-to-court.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=1&utm_campaign=topstory?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=1&utm_campaign=topstory

dindude

Gibson's best defence against the competition is to make them properly in the first place.

Jez6345789

Hmm
I think JHS by the sound of things needed better lawyers to battle Gibsons big guns but in the US that costs big bucks. 
Ultimately for many years Gibsons approach to trademark infringement has been at best spotty and my understanding is that you have to vigorously pursue all infringements and in essence Gibson have been selective. 

There are plenty of V shaped  and les paul shaped guitars sold on the market today in the US. 

In the end money and legal clout will win but its just a the last ditch attempts of a vindictive monopoly before long it will be Gibson suing people who play copies of their trademarked model. LOL

SteveRobinson

I wonder what the settlement is? I'm guessing that JHS will pay a licensing fee for every guitar they make rather than a cease and desist notice?

richardhomer

Sounds like this might cause problems for Terry Morgan as well....

Bridgehouse

richardhomer said:

Sounds like this might cause problems for Terry Morgan as well....

If he has to pay a license he might have to speed up his production to one every two years..

Danielsguitars

Bridgehouse said:o

richardhomer said:

Sounds like this might cause problems for Terry Morgan as well....

If he has to pay a license he might have to speed up his production to one every two years..

No I think he makes about 10 or 12 a year, that's a shit load of licence fees

IvisonGuitars

customkits said:

Bridgehouse said:o

richardhomer said:

Sounds like this might cause problems for Terry Morgan as well....

If he has to pay a license he might have to speed up his production to one every two years..

No I think he makes about 10 or 12 a year, that's a shit load of licence fees

I would't have thought that would worry TM too much given that they are replica's including the open book headstock and he's been doing them for years.

Would Gibson really bother with someone making 10/12 guitars a year?? If so, that would suddenly impact a lot of the hobby builders and small luthiers on the MLP forum for a start. 

Is the single cut Les Paul shape under copyright in the UK or just the US?

Neil

Perhaps if Gibson and Fender had protected their IP in the past as vigourously as Rickenbacker there may not be so many slavish copies of their designs around rather than something fresh and new?

revsorg

Maybe I'm a hopeless idealist, but if you see a company exhibit despicable legal over-reach in an attempt to quell competition don't you vote with your wallet? 

Danielsguitars

I can't see how they can trademark a body when someone told me they ripped off bigsby in the first place

I will have to look that up

And I'm definitely with Jonathan on voting with your wallet, I really hope people eventually go to the small builders for a better product

crunchman

customkits said:

I can't see how they can trademark a body when someone told me they ripped off bigsby in the first place

I will have to look that up

And I'm definitely with Jonathan on voting with your wallet, I really hope people eventually go to the small builders for a better product

No-one bothered to object when they registered the trademark on the body shape.  If someone had then it would probably never have been approved.

I seem to remember Fender trying to trademark the Strat body shape more recently, but various people objected saying it had become generic and their application was denied.

As far as I know Gibson only have the trademark on the body shapes in the US.  But like others have said it is by far the biggest market in the world.

Terry Morgan is a different case as he's copying the headstock and the Logo.  He's not got a website (and probably no business address) and it's all word of mouth so it would be very difficult for Gibson to go after him.  There is nothing officially on the record about these guitars.  If he denied all knowledge then Gibson would find it very difficult unless they could persuade some of his buyers to take the stand in court.  In a civil case I doubt Gibson could raid his workshop so it would be very difficult for them to do anything.

Sassafras

I'm sure the Chinese with their Chibsons must be quaking in their boots at this news.

Bridgehouse

Sassafras said:

I'm sure the Chinese with their Chibsons must be quaking in their boots at this news.

Nah, they would need to make accurate copies that infringed the copyright to be in the firing line

Voxman

I think this is all getting a bit ridiculous.  Does that mean Fender have the same rights re Stratocaster & Telecaster - two of the most iconic shapes in the history of the guitar!  And why has the Les Paul been left out?  There are just too many 'copies' or 'similar shapes' out there & how & when do you draw the line?  Surely Gibson would only ever go after the 'big boys' anyway as anything else would just be uneconomic and impractical to try & sue every small guitar maker?  If they're not careful, this could blow up in their faces causing detriment & customer backlash rather than positive enhancement to their public image. 

Bridgehouse

Voxman said:

I think this is all getting a bit ridiculous.  Does that mean Fender have the same rights re Stratocaster & Telecaster - two of the most iconic shapes in the history of the guitar!  And why has the Les Paul been left out?  There are just too many 'copies' or 'similar shapes' out there & how & when do you draw the line?  Surely Gibson would only ever go after the 'big boys' anyway as anything else would just be uneconomic and impractical to try & sue every small guitar maker?  If they're not careful, this could blow up in their faces causing detriment not enhancement to their public image. 

I think a lot of this is embodied in US patent law.. 

Firstly, you have to pass a Non-obvious test:

"How is Something Determined to be "Non-Obvious?"

The non-obviousness test is the most difficult obstacle in the patent review process. The question the USPTO asks is: knowing what's out there, is the invention an obvious step? If the invention is simply a combination of several different prior patents, it may be deemed an obvious next step, and therefore denied.

The USPTO will look at "prior art" (a term meaning the state of technological knowledge before the patent application to determine whether the invention is "obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art." There must be an inventive leap. In other words, the invention must have a distance between it and the prior art.

In addition to examining prior art, the USPTO also looks to secondary considerations to shed light on the level of obviousness at the time of the invention. For example, if your invention is a commercial success, that may indicate that there was nothing else in the market like your invention and that others failed to achieve the same result. Or if there was a long period of time between the relevant prior art and the patent at issue, it may indicate that the patent is not obvious, otherwise there would have been other similar products that tried to fill the void.

Non-obviousness is the most hotly contested portion of the patent review process because it's the most subjective. One patent examiner may look at an invention and think it's merely the next logical step up from prior art whereas another examiner may look at the same prior art and think that the invention shows an inventive leap and is therefore not obvious."

But for Fender and Gibson in particular, they fall foul of Novel as well:

"What Does it Mean for an Invention to be "Novel?"

To be novel, an invention must not be known or used by anyone else in the U.S. and must not be patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country before the date of the patent application. Basically, if there's another invention out there before your patent application that incorporates all the same elements as your invention, then your invention is not novel and the patent will be denied.

Additionally, the USPTO has a rule that states that if the invention of described in a printed publication in the U.S. or a foreign country, or in public use or on sale in the U.S. more than one year prior to the date of the patent application, the patent will be denied. So, if any of these three things happen—1) on sale, 2) public use, or 3) printed publication one year prior to the application date, you can't apply for a patent.

As a result of the "one-year rule," there is a possibility that you could destroy the novelty of your own invention by delaying the application. For example, if you have someone manufacture or use your invention to determine if it's patent worthy and end up applying for after a year has gone by, the application may be denied as not being novel. If you believe this could be a problem you should consult a patent attorney because there are different rules regarding "experimental" uses of inventions that could get you around the one year rule.

However, for the Trademark question, the USPTO has three categories of consideration: Patent, Trademark, and Copyright.

Patent is out (as above), Trademark is a logo or name, leaving Copyright.

Copyright is designed to protect:

 "original works of authorship" that are Fixed in "a tangible form of expression." The fixed form does not have to be directly perceptible so long as it can be communicated with the aid of a machine or other device. Copyrightable works fall into the following categories: 

 

-                      literary works (which includes computer software); 

-                      musical works, including any accompanying words; 

-                      dramatic works, including any accompanying music ; 

-                      pantomimes and choreographic works; 

-                      pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; 

-                      motion pictures and other audiovisual works; 

-                      sound recordings; and

-                      architectural works.

So where would Gibson or Fender go for the iconic Strat or Les Paul?

martinw

I think you're overthinking it @Bridgehouse

It won't get anywhere near a court, so the technicalities don't matter. Gibson are just bullying by having more money to throw at lawyers. They just need to have any sort of case, then hire bigger law firms than anyone who they challenge can afford.

That's probably what their latest loans will finance

 

Bridgehouse

martinw said:

I think you're overthinking it @Bridgehouse

It won't get anywhere near a court, so the technicalities don't matter. Gibson are just bullying by having more money to throw at lawyers. They just need to have any sort of case, then hire bigger law firms than anyone who they challenge can afford.

That's probably what their latest loans will finance

 

My post was an answer to @Voxman 's question of why not Les Paul or Strat shapes.

And the TL:DR version of my answer is "just too bloody hard to justify to a court"

Aside from that question, I agree - it's just Gibson being a bully. 

martinw

Bridgehouse said:

martinw said:

I think you're overthinking it @Bridgehouse

It won't get anywhere near a court, so the technicalities don't matter. Gibson are just bullying by having more money to throw at lawyers. They just need to have any sort of case, then hire bigger law firms than anyone who they challenge can afford.

That's probably what their latest loans will finance

 

My post was an answer to @Voxman 's question of why not Les Paul or Strat shapes.

And the TL:DR version of my answer is "just too bloody hard to justify to a court"

Aside from that question, I agree - it's just Gibson being a bully. 

Sorry, was TL:DR.

SteveRobinson

Bridgehouse said:

I think a lot of this is embodied in US patent law.. 

The issue is not patents but trademarks. The outline of the body shape is seen as distinctive to the brand.