How do you change a body shape to avoid trademark infringement?

[Patriot54]

How would you change a body shape to avoid trademark infringement, while still maintaining a classic look?

For example, on the V shape, could you just shorten the lower part of the V a little (not as much as the V2). I have some ideas but I never got around to making mockups yet (maybe this weekend).

As for the LP, there have already been so minor variations on the shape, from PRS to Washburn, etc, etc. I picture something like the Frank Montag virtual guitars (shorter lower horn, sharper horn, etc.)

Also, I've been wondering if the trademark is all about the shape outline, or do the contours count as well?

I know the Warmoth project is top secret but the suspense is killing me. I hope I don't get sued for thinking about this. 

 

[pabloman]

I'm pretty sure the PRS lawsuit stuff focused on controls and locations. The Singlecuts built during that mess used more of a Custom 22/24 McCarty type layout. It has a lot to do with perceived intent.

 

[Updown]

:dontknow: ..... move the output jack hole  :icon_jokercolor:

Good Q thou Mully  :icon_thumright:

 

[mullyman]

:dontknow: ..... move the output jack hole  :icon_jokercolor:

Good Q thou Mully  :icon_thumright:

Me??
MULLY

 

[Updown]

Oppps sorry  :doh:  I meant Patriot54

 

[Jumble Jumble]

I seem to remember that the PRS lawsuit hinged on the fact that everyone agreed you wouldn't mistake the PRS for a Gibson on stage or in a shop. That's just a judgement call that has to be made. Obviously the old Warmoth LP shape was pretty much designed such that it would be mistaken for a Gibson, which is the problem. It just has to satisfy a court (if it goes that far) that it wouldn't be mistaken for a Gibson.

 

[swarfrat]

Apple onced used 'Sagan' for an internal codename, when Carl got wind of it he sent them a cease and desist letter. So thet renamed the project "Butthead Astronomer"

Would be nice if there was a way to incorporate the sentiment in the new shape., wouldn't it?  I know legal battles are expensive just to show up, but given the previous case law, and the DOIJ unrelenting personal vendetta against Gibson, Warmoth could've walked away with the keys to the Gibson factory.

The thing is, now it doesn't matter, they've made Gibson the judge of whether the design is acceptable and I can tell you that they will not like ANY carved top single cutaway tune-o-matic double humbucker guitar.

 

[jackthehack]

As a purely legal matter, I don't see have Gibson could ultimately prevail in court, although they may not have to if the threat of litigation costs results in the same end...

In the past 40+ years that I've been paying attention to guitars there has always been a plethora of LP copy guitars available from numerous manufacturers.

If you check the "patents" in question:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=2&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22Gibson+Guitar%22.ASNM.&Page=Next&OS=AN/%22Gibson+Guitar%22&RS=AN/%22Gibson+Guitar%22

...Gibson didn't get around to trying to patent the body shapes until 35-40 years or so after their first manufacture...

IANAL, but generally if there is no action/enforcement on a patent/trade dress issue for an extended length of time you are SOL; unsure how this applies to a "patent" issued 35-40 years after "invention", but there's a lot of room for debate...

Just think, if any of us had thought of patenting these body shapes prior to 1997-1998, we could be suing Gibson....