Gibson flips out, sic's lawyers on Kiesel

PhilHill

PhilHill

Hero Member
Messages
1,653
Gibson's Management and Legal Dept. have apparently been sharing the same crack pipe lately, and a littile too often from the looks of it.
They have decided to send a cease and desist letter to Kiesel Guitars over two of Kiesel's models. Guitar Player mag. has a write up https://www.guitarplayer.com/gear/gibson-reportedly-sends-cease-and-desist-to-kiesel-over-ultra-v-design

To me this is like Martin attempting to sue everyone that makes a dreadnought style guitar. Both of the Gibson models were introduced in the fifties, later dropped from production and then reintroduced again years later. I can't say for sure, but I would guess that the patent's on both of them died awhile back.
  Who's kidding who here?
 
No patents involved, so nothing to expire. But, they have trademarks. Different laws involved. With trademarks, you have to defend them, or they're lost. Not sure what timing is involved, where lack of defense would imply de facto permission. I think Bagman's an IP lawyer so maybe he could fill in some blanks.
 
Gibson no. Ibanez (headstock) and Jackson (body) maybe. But neither look like a Gibson. Aside from the two eyes, a nose in the middle, and two ears thing.
 
Cagey said:
No patents involved, so nothing to expire. But, they have trademarks. Different laws involved. With trademarks, you have to defend them, or they're lost. Not sure what timing is involved, where lack of defense would imply de facto permission. I think Bagman's an IP lawyer so maybe he could fill in some blanks.
Click to expand...

My bad, thinking trademark, typed patent. It's been a long day.  :doh:
 
I think at this point, Gibson is just grasping at straws. They're most likely hemorrhaging money, so fastest way to gain funds is to sue...
 
DangerousR6 said:
I think at this point, Gibson is just grasping at straws. They're most likely hemorrhaging money, so fastest way to gain funds is to sue...
Click to expand...

That's what I'm kinda thinking. The only possible way they could be infringing is that the guitars have slight similarities in basic body shape. If that's infringement, then half the guitars made in the last 60 yrs, including a single cutaway round body acoustic would be guilty. And if Gibson didn't defend their Trademark against those, would they not have lost it already?  I know they took some of the Asian Manufacturers to task years back, but those where blatant copies not just vague shapes.
 
Maybe the Gibson's lawyers feel like they're leaving money on the table if they don't actively search for things to do that they can bill for. I know I feel that way about my doctors sometimes. 
 
Either they defend now or forever hold their peace.  They’ll probably lose but you never know. Lawyers will get paid anyway, and when it’s over they’ll have certainty going forward.  Maybe not the certainty they want, but hey, why not.
 
After looking at things for awhile, I think I see a pattern. Gibson finds company making guitars vaguely similar to theirs. They make noises about expensive legal action to see if company reacts right. If so, Gibson then say's "Tell you what. we'll let you continue production if you pay us a licensing fee on each guitar." Company agrees. Gibson sits back and sings "Money for nothin' and the checks are free!' .         
They've done it before.
 
Trolling for dollars makes sense, but I'm not sure anybody's paying up. Who's still using those designs that isn't under fire, other than some of the usual suspects on the Pacific Rim who don't much care?
 
Cagey said:
Trolling for dollars makes sense, but I'm not sure anybody's paying up. Who's still using those designs that isn't under fire, other than some of the usual suspects on the Pacific Rim who don't much care?
Click to expand...
Yesterday, I saw a story about a couple of small outfits capitulating to this scam and paying up. Naturally, I now can't find the reference. Grr.
I'll have to keep looking. When you get down to it Gibson should be paying someone else; 

Bigsby solidbody made for Merle Travis, from a sketch he did for Bigsby in 1948.






 

Attachments

  • bigsby 1948.jpg
    bigsby 1948.jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 220
We should probably ban the Gibson bashing threads. Not because they don't deserve it, buy for the same reason we don't shoot ducks not in flight. It just ain't sporting.
 
Ironically, Carvin has been making single cutaway HXH VVTT configured guitars since the early 60's.
Gibson ideally is just trying to bankrupt folks in legal fees at this point.
 
swarfrat said:
We should probably ban the Gibson bashing threads. Not because they don't deserve it, buy for the same reason we don't shoot ducks not in flight. It just ain't sporting.
Click to expand...

I understand what your saying. But I don't feel too bad. Not really bashing Gibson, as the Gibson Guitar Co. or more correctly, The Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Manufacturing Co. (Which is what Orville established) doesn't exist anymore. It hasn't existed since the 50's or 60's (Can't remember exactly when the penny pinching Suits took over) so what exists is a Corporate run consumer goods manufacturing concern. Interested in neither guitars nor music, only the profit margin.
However, yes even a rabid Hyena shouldn't be kicked when it's down. :icon_jokercolor:
 
PhilHill said:
swarfrat said:
We should probably ban the Gibson bashing threads. Not because they don't deserve it, buy for the same reason we don't shoot ducks not in flight. It just ain't sporting.
Click to expand...

However, yes even a rabid Hyena shouldn't be kicked when it's down. :icon_jokercolor:
Click to expand...

yes it should!  That's the best time  :headbang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top