I've just seen that in addition to going after Kiesel, Gibson has recently taken issue with the Heartbreakers' logo on the grounds that it includes a cartoony Flying V.
As with the idiotic PLAY AUTHENTIC thing, I assume this is just a box-ticking exercise that allows Gibson to demonstrate it has attempted to protect its trademarks, but it seems utterly pointless.
The horse bolted long ago; the people being targeted are taking nothing off the company's bottom line; and even if the majority of customers will never hear about any of this, it's clearly unpopular with a group of people that buy a lot of guitars.
Are there any trademark experts on the forum who could explain why any of this is worth doing?
Comments
I've heard of similar situations in the video games industry: the developers of Candy Crush Saga have made attempts to block other developers from using the words "Candy" or "Saga" in their game titles - the trademarks they have around Candy Crush games might not necessarily 'allow' them to block the name, but if they don't show that they're trying to protect their IP it can weaken the trademark's validity in other suits.
Might be similar with Gibson, but admittedly I'm not an expert. Could just be more corporate arrogance, since that has been Gibson's usual mode of behaviour for a while.
Somebody in that company needs a wake up slap.
Far too late to complain now.
I’m so bored I might as well be listening to Pink Floyd
Back when I worked in engineering sales, there was a company called Fenner who invented and trademarked a thing called a taper-lock bush. They sued some of their own distributors for using the phrase "taper-lock bush" in advertising, as it was a Fenner trademark... even though the distributors were advertising that they sold Fenner taper-lock bushes
Been uploading old tracks I recorded ages ago and hopefully some new noodles here.
There was a situation where a couple of their most popular wrestlers moved to a rival company under new names and the company replaced them with a couple of random guys using their old names and costumes. The audience found it daft and tacky at the time and it just seemed like a stupid idea.
But in this interview it was revealed that it was actually them setting an example of how they owned the IP separate to the original portrayers of the characters so that they could refer to it as a precedent in future legal cases if they had to.
I have to admit though, I do sympathise with companies who come up with a design that everyone wants but then has to compete with other companies making copies of that design. I could completely understand if a company found that unfair.
The only problem being - as I've just reminded myself - even the body shape was fucking hideous.