Gibson tosses around its weight

[Rick]

Lawsuit.  Problem I have, as I'm sure the Jury and Judge will also have, is that Dean's been making these models for 35 years.  I guess Gibson wants to settle this issue once and for all.  I hope so, Gibson is wearing me out.

https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/gibson-sues-dean-guitars-trademark-infringement/

 

[swarfrat]

From the above link... um yeah. Better hope I'm not on the jury deciding this aspect:

 

[Seamas]

I am generally OK with a company or designer or songwriter protecting their copyrights and trademarks, but it seems Gibson is intend of claiming rights to anything that might possibly be confused with one of their guitars from three miles away in poor lighting.

Including that headstock is just displaying a really callous and predatory intent.

The thing is, I'd really like to like Gibson.
When I first played guitar, my dream guitars were mostly Gibson. I've never owned one and when I was in the market where picking one up was in the picture, I was really not all that impressed.
I was particularly surprised at the relatively poor quality and price tag of their acoustics.
About a decade ago they seemed intent on having more inventory and floor space in the Guitar centers--in the "good" acoustic room.
So you would compare the various Gibsons with the likes of Taylor, Martin and Larivee, etc. When you compared specs, the Gibsons were often more expensive, had some questionable quality (amazing amount of squeezeout on the glue on the bracing) and often sounded like there were wet socks stuffed into the soundholes. I know Martin will have periods of shaky QC, but never anything like this.

The company seems to have its head up its ass. They should skip the gimmicks, make their iconic guitars worth their iconic status and maybe- just maybe give limited licenses to some models for kit makers and occasional boutique makers.

 

[AirCap]

Guess they were serious..... I don't know why they didn't stick to the body, not the peghead. Are they going to argue that ALL 3-on-a-side peghead concepts are theirs? Martin might not dig that. Maybe Fender should sue Gibson for using a 6-on-a-side peghead on their Firebirds.

 

[aarontunes]

I'm not hip to the byzantine financial shell-game that was Gibson's restructuring, or the world of lawyers and legal wrangling for that matter....but where does a bankrupt company get the money to do this?


I'm also curious as to why they chose to set their sights on Dean. Seems like they picked one of the more difficult targets. Dean's been making those designs for a looong time, and they are pretty easily discernible from Gibsons.

 

[bagman67]

Oh, boy, here we go.


Under US law, there are different kinds of bankruptcies.  Chapter 7 (which refers to the portion of the US Code governing the type of bankruptcy) is a liquidation bankruptcy, in which the assets of a business are sold off to (generally only partially) satisfy the company's debts.  Gibson's bankruptcy is not that.


Gibson's Chapter 11 proceedings allow the company to reorganize and to restructure or consolidate debts, often at a substantial discount.  This is favored over Chapter 7 because it keeps some people working, allows investors (both shareholders and creditors) to stand a chance at eventually recovering some of their losses, and is generally seen as less disruptive overall than allowing the bankrupt entity to go out of  business entirely.  An appointed official for the bankrupt company, usually a lawyer -- called the trustee -- will be entrusted with managing this process.


One of the things the trustee can do is pursue legal claims that would improve the company's financial standing.  The idea is that the trustee is acting as a fiduciary for the company's creditors and investors.  By seeking to improve the company's position vis-a-vis its competitors by chasing alleged imitators out of the market or forcing them to modify their goods, the trustee generates greater value in the company for the creditors and investors.  Sometimes this is very valuable - pursuing monies owed to the company by customers or licensees, recovering damages in tort actions, that sort of thing - but sometimes the value is more speculative.  Often the trustee will be under significant pressure from investors and creditors to pursue any and all possible means of recovering dough for the company.  Maybe that's happening here, I dunno.  I have no window into the battles among the competing interests among Gibson's various creditors, banks, shreholders, and employees.  And note that we're all blathering on here about some stunt a marketing guy pulled, not one the trustee necessarily pursued (although the trustee may conceivably have been involved in management discussions about whether to pursue this type of marketing).


To round things out, Chapter 13, which is inapposite here, provides the mechanism for individuals to restructure and cancel their debts, often at a discount with a court-approved repayment plan.

 

[bagman67]

And I see now in the story re: Gibson suing Dean and Luna under their Armadillo Enterprises parent.  Dunno if Gibson's still in bankruptcy, or if this is just the new CEO running his own show.  We'll just see how it all shakes out, and I personally will continue to build and play partscasters.

 

[aarontunes]

And I see now in the story re: Gibson suing Dean and Luna under their Armadillo Enterprises parent.  Dunno if Gibson's still in bankruptcy, or if this is just the new CEO running his own show.  We'll just see how it all shakes out, and I personally will continue to build and play partscasters.

Thanks for the good info.


I also thought it noteworthy that G is not just claiming trademark infringement, but actual counterfeiting...which seems to a non-lawyer like me a more serious kettle of fish, but with perhaps different statute of limitations and/or other legal differences that in their view up the likelihood of a decision in their favor. In my view that will be much more difficult to prove, as Dean has never tried to pass itself off as Gibson. Not even close.

 

[Rick]

https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/gibson-dean-guitars-armadillo-responds/

 

[amigarobbo]

Guess they were serious..... I don't know why they didn't stick to the body, not the peghead. Are they going to argue that ALL 3-on-a-side peghead concepts are theirs?

Well to be fair they did invent it.  :evil4: :evil4:

Interesting article on 'lawsuit era' guitars, https://flypaper.soundfly.com/discover/truth-lawsuit-era-guitars/

Unusually the comments are probably better than the article.

 

[AirCap]

Other companies joining Dean to fight back? A genuine revolt! (get the popcorn ready)

 

[Seamas]

Guess they were serious..... I don't know why they didn't stick to the body, not the peghead. Are they going to argue that ALL 3-on-a-side peghead concepts are theirs?

Well to be fair they did invent it.  :evil4: :evil4:

Wow, Stradavarius even bear Gibson to the whole broken headstock thing.

 

[DangerousR6]

And I see now in the story re: Gibson suing Dean and Luna under their Armadillo Enterprises parent.  Dunno if Gibson's still in bankruptcy, or if this is just the new CEO running his own show.  We'll just see how it all shakes out, and I personally will continue to build and play partscasters.

Thanks for the good info.


I also thought it noteworthy that G is not just claiming trademark infringement, but actual counterfeiting...which seems to a non-lawyer like me a more serious kettle of fish, but with perhaps different statute of limitations and/or other legal differences that in their view up the likelihood of a decision in their favor. In my view that will be much more difficult to prove, as Dean has never tried to pass itself off as Gibson. Not even close.

I doubt they'll get away with that...They would have prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the "Likelihood of Confusion"...

Counterfeiting would be a direct copy, such as what happened with Ibanez and the "lawsuit" guitars...

 

[swarfrat]

My non lawyer interpretation of countefeitting would have to be at least a Ro1ex or Gib50n  or something similar.

Reading the Armadillo response.. Gibson could actually end up losing the keys if they get too nasty.

 

[bagman67]

Indeed.  If you come on strong about a trademark, someone could countersue asserting your trademark is no longer valid - and then you lose the store.

 

[DangerousR6]

Indeed.  If you come on strong about a trademark, someone could countersue asserting your trademark is no longer valid - and then you lose the store.

True but the US trademark registration generally allows the trademark to be protected the trademark for ten years. During this timeframe, the mark must be continuously monitored by the owner or representative of the company. Prior to the sixth year of trademark protection, a document for continued use must be filed. Failure to register the Affidavit of Continued Use between the fifth and sixth year will result in cancelation of the trademark protection.

So if G has not been vigilant about keeping up with their TM, then they could be in for a rude awakening. But as stated, it might not be ensued as a TM infringement but as counterfeit, which could catastrophically backfire in court. 

 

[bagman67]

All true.  And as we sit here armchair-quarterbacking the whole undertaking, Armadillo has to ask itself, do I want to spend a giant wad of cash defending a court case, or do I want to adjust the shape of my guitars and instead spend that money to market them as a superior and/or better priced alternative to the 800-pound gorillas?


Kooky.

 

[Cagey]

Market perceptions are powerful things. I remember my dad was sold on the "Chrysler" marque, and nothing else mattered. Back when they came out with the "K-car", he decided he wanted one. Couldn't be the Dodge or Plymouth version, had to be the Chrysler. I'd seen the line down at Jefferson Ass'y, and they were all identical, outside of the model name sticker. Literally built on the same line by the same guys from the same parts, the only difference being in the labeling on the rear deck and front quarterpanel, along with a some minor detail in the taillight lenses and grillwork, which were interchangeable. Didn't matter. To him, Dodges and Plymouths were crap, and Chrysler made a Good Car.

Household appliances are often the same way. When it comes to stoves, fridges, washers, dryers, mixers, microwaves, etc., the manufacturers are so inbred it borders on collusion. There are nowhere near as many manufacturers of those things as many believe - each finds a specialty and builds for all, changing marques, cosmetics and packaging/paperwork as needed to satisfy the decision makers mommies market.

There are certainly guitar players who are that narrow-minded and believe "if it's not a Gibson, it's CRAP!", reality be damned. How do you put a price on that kind of loyalty? It's worth defending, because $$$.

 

[amigarobbo]

This thing has legs.

 

[AirCap]

This thing has legs.

THAT thing is dumb.