Dean Zelinski has been making these since 1977 and Big G did nothing about it.
- Thread starter Unwound G
- Start date
Toulouse_Tuhles
Senior Member
- Messages
- 236
Didn't know it was over V shape tho... jeeze.
Toulouse_Tuhles
Senior Member
- Messages
- 236
On further thought.... if I was Armadillo (owners of Dean), I'd be callin' PRS and asking the names of their lawyers... if PRS won their case with an arguably more similar shape to the LP, this ought to be cut n dry. Again, G is goin' for the small potatoes, workin' up the ladder to the bigger folks, hopefully taking on court decisions in the process.
Incrementalism in the courts is a common strategy.
Incrementalism in the courts is a common strategy.
DangerousR6
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 15,478
We need the link...Unwound G said:
DangerousR6
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 15,478
Next they'll be going after Fender, the owners of Hamer, altho they no longer make the Exp or the V's, they still make the LP Jr double cutaways and some LP Jr single cutaways...
DangerousR6
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 15,478
:laughing11:AirCap said:
Strat Avenger
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,632
I hate Gibson, and will never buy a Gibson product.
Ace Flibble
Hero Member
- Messages
- 865
Gibson are doing what they have to do. Copyright and trademark laws are extremely stupid things which, in many cases, dictate the owner of rights must pursue legal action against any infringement they are aware of or they lose their rights automatically. Many holders don't like this because it means they have to spend far more time and money on legal cases which they otherwise could have easily ignored without it affecting their business. Especially for bigger and more public-visible companies like Gibson, it would be much better if they could pick and choose what to pursue and what to ignore, so if a more genuine threat to their business cropped up they could deal with it without them having to also engage with irrelevant infringements.
What actually appears to be the case in this instance is Gibson had managed to maintain plausible deniability of knowing about Dean for all this time and/or nobody bothered to publicly ask them. But then some eejit did bring it up and so Gibson had to act. if everyone had just kept quiet then everything could have kept trucking along as normal; Dean's guitars, while not insignificant, very clearly are not a financial threat to Gibson and could have carried on being ignored.
FWIW when people bring up PRS, ESP, etc, and other bigger brands which more clearly are a definite threat to Gibson's business, the general rule is they've changed the design just enough for it to no longer be an infringement, or in some cases Gibson (and Fender, for that matter) have reached private settlements with a few companies (ESP being one) for particular models of guitars to carry on as long as advertising is changed or they're only sold in specific regions. (E.G. The much more Gibson-like ESP Eclipses which aren't allowed to be sold in the Americas or Europe, but are allowed everywhere else.)
I mean, I've literally sat in Gibson's London offices... with a Schecter rep. And a Gibson rep who previously worked at Ibanez. These manufacturers absolutely are not having the tribal wars that so many players seem to think they are.
TL;DR: Gibson are actually about as chill as they can legally be. They only do the minimum that they have to and more often then not they let copies slide. It's only when you make a really blatant infringement and you or someone else makes it known to them in a fashion they can't deny that they move to action.
What actually appears to be the case in this instance is Gibson had managed to maintain plausible deniability of knowing about Dean for all this time and/or nobody bothered to publicly ask them. But then some eejit did bring it up and so Gibson had to act. if everyone had just kept quiet then everything could have kept trucking along as normal; Dean's guitars, while not insignificant, very clearly are not a financial threat to Gibson and could have carried on being ignored.
FWIW when people bring up PRS, ESP, etc, and other bigger brands which more clearly are a definite threat to Gibson's business, the general rule is they've changed the design just enough for it to no longer be an infringement, or in some cases Gibson (and Fender, for that matter) have reached private settlements with a few companies (ESP being one) for particular models of guitars to carry on as long as advertising is changed or they're only sold in specific regions. (E.G. The much more Gibson-like ESP Eclipses which aren't allowed to be sold in the Americas or Europe, but are allowed everywhere else.)
I mean, I've literally sat in Gibson's London offices... with a Schecter rep. And a Gibson rep who previously worked at Ibanez. These manufacturers absolutely are not having the tribal wars that so many players seem to think they are.
TL;DR: Gibson are actually about as chill as they can legally be. They only do the minimum that they have to and more often then not they let copies slide. It's only when you make a really blatant infringement and you or someone else makes it known to them in a fashion they can't deny that they move to action.
Eh, your loss.Street Avenger said:
S
swarfrat
Guest
Whatever it is, it's CLEARLY not an SG.
bagman67
Epic Member
- Messages
- 9,106
It's an ESP Viper, which is similar but not identical to the Warmoth Diamondback. The Diamondback has more angular contours in the cutaways than the ESP item. I believe The Aaron pointed out the differences recently in another thread, but in any event you can spot them yourself doing a little Google Image Search on "esp viper" and "warmoth diamondback".
Strat Avenger
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,632
It's no loss at all. I love all my guitars, and no Gibson can out-perform them.
All I need is a fine musical instrument. I don't need to worship a corporation.
Toulouse_Tuhles
Senior Member
- Messages
- 236
".....Gibson are doing what they have to do. Copyright and trademark laws are extremely stupid things which, in many cases, dictate the owner of rights must pursue legal action against any infringement they are aware of or they lose their rights automatically....."
I beg to differ. They must show that confusion in the market place existed with trademarked company and/or products.
I beg to differ. They must show that confusion in the market place existed with trademarked company and/or products.
bagman67
Epic Member
- Messages
- 9,106
Toulouse_Tuhles said:
Or convince a court that such will be the case. This is the rock upon which Gibson's action against PRS foundered.
But this one against Armadillo does not merely allege infringement, it alleges trademark counterfeiting, a consequence of which is that Gibson, if it were to prevail at trial, would be entitled to triple its actual, proven damages as a punitive measure against Armadillo.
Toulouse_Tuhles
Senior Member
- Messages
- 236
As was stated... they're going for the small potatoes, unable to defend themselves, first.
DangerousR6
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 15,478
Unwound G said:
Metallicops....
Similar threads
