gibson vs the world!

drumnut87

Well-known member
anyone been keeping an eye on what gibson guitars have been doing lately? apart from the widely-known filing for bankruptcy, they're now taking other makers to court over "infringing on their designs" (they lost a load of cases in europe) now they're going after kiesel guitars over their ultra V guitar, saying that its a copy of their "trademarked" flying V (they look nothing alike to me) so they sent kiesel a cease-and-desist letter. IMO gibson are getting pretty desperate seeing as their last few moves have backfired on them.
 

bud7h4

Silver Member
The lawsuits sound like an attempt to stay above water. Of course if their claims are just, it's difficult to criticize them for those.
 

drumnut87

Well-known member
The lawsuits sound like an attempt to stay above water. Of course if their claims are just, it's difficult to criticize them for those.
true, though every claim theyre putting in so far has either been dismissed or thrown out immediately. like the flying V vs ultra V one, the ultra V came out in 1986, the gibson trademark for flying V didnt get approved until 1995. so theyve got shaky ground on that issue for starters.
 

AudioWonderland

Silver Member
anyone been keeping an eye on what gibson guitars have been doing lately? apart from the widely-known filing for bankruptcy, they're now taking other makers to court over "infringing on their designs" (they lost a load of cases in europe) now they're going after kiesel guitars over their ultra V guitar, saying that its a copy of their "trademarked" flying V (they look nothing alike to me) so they sent kiesel a cease-and-desist letter. IMO gibson are getting pretty desperate seeing as their last few moves have backfired on them.
They are trying to extract every last dollar out of the value of the Intellectual property. THey are just doing it badly. For example, the Kiesel guitars in question were released about 10 years prior to Gibsion receiving their trademarks on the V. The lawyers are slacking on their research. It seems they saw "Kiesel" came into existence not many years ago and went after them completely clueless that Carvin was their predecessor.
 

KamaK

Platinum Member
Regarding the trademark on the V: Trademark enforcement is not like copyright, in that it's enforcement is compulsory. You "must" file trademark claims, otherwise you loose the trademark. Copyright can not be lost without an instrument of transference, or its expiration.

The purpose of copyright, trademark, and patents is to request that the government grant you a temporary monopoly on your creative work in order to reward individuals/inventors/artists for their works.

I do not care for what Gibson is doing with the USPTO in order to stifle competition and arrogate revenue from other guitar makers. Trademarking something a half century after the fact and waiting another quarter century to bring enforcement is a silly abuse of the Trademark system and is akin to biting the hand that feeds them.

On the flip side, I'm 100% on Gibson's side on the Chibson thing. Exceptions/loopholes in trademark and copyright exist so that you can do things like have look-alike stage/film props made.... Not so that you can rip people off on craigslist.

Disclosure: I play Norlin era Gibsons

 
Last edited:

drumnut87

Well-known member
Regarding the trademark on the V: Trademark enforcement is not like copyright, in that it's enforcement is compulsory. You "must" file trademark claims, otherwise you loose the trademark. Copyright can not be lost without an instrument of transference, or its expiration.

The purpose of copyright, trademark, and patents is to request that the government grant you a temporary monopoly on your creative work in order to reward individuals/inventors/artists for their works.

I do not care for what Gibson is doing with the USPTO in order to stifle competition and arrogate revenue from other guitar makers. Trademarking something a half century after the fact and waiting another quarter century to bring enforcement is a silly abuse of the Trademark system and is akin to biting the hand that feeds them.

On the flip side, I'm 100% on Gibson's side on the Chibson thing. Exceptions/loopholes in trademark and copyright exist so that you can do things like have look-alike stage/film props made.... Not so that you can rip people off on craigslist.

Disclosure: I play Norlin era Gibsons

oh yeah, chinese gibsons are notorious, but everyone knows that in china copyright laws are basically worthless and they'll copy/counterfeit everything and anything. for example udo Hubeck, one of the bigwig meinl guys, posted on his facebook about a load of chinese knockoffs of meinl cymbals and percussion items at trade shows, including ones that meinl were at and were literally jsut a couple of booths away from each other.
 

KamaK

Platinum Member
oh yeah, chinese gibsons are notorious, but everyone knows that in china copyright laws are basically worthless and they'll copy/counterfeit everything and anything. for example udo Hubeck, one of the bigwig meinl guys, posted on his facebook about a load of chinese knockoffs of meinl cymbals and percussion items at trade shows, including ones that meinl were at and were literally jsut a couple of booths away from each other.
IMHO, they're welcome to make them, and they're welcome to sell them... In China.... And in nations where CTP protections do not apply. Basically, other countries can do whatever they want without our interference.

In nations like the US, you should be welcome to buy/own them, but the moment you attempt to import them without a customs exception, you should be charged with a with an enforcement action by USCBP and pay civil penalties. The moment you try to sell them in the US, you should be hit with a criminal violation for fraud or some other associated penalty.

Ultimately, you can buy/own/sell as many Chibsons as you want, but they have to stay in China.
 
Top