WTF: Gibson files first infringement lawsuit

smurfco said:
Hummmmm let’s see what happens
Click to expand...
MonkeyZero said:
Do they really think people see a Dean V and assume it's a Gibson? Why don't they focus their efforts on making a guitar that has a solid head stock?
Click to expand...
They will more than likely lose the lawsuit since they never defended the design in the last 30 years. But this is more then likely about costing Dean as much money as possible defending themselves. There by scaring other manufacturers into capitulating when they receive C&D notices. Its extremely expensive to defend yourself in federal court. The party the files can file motion after motion that will cost them very little in comparison to how mucho it will cost you to defend yourself. I know from experience.
 
reverend1 said:
They will more than likely lose the lawsuit since they never defended the design in the last 30 years. But this is more then likely about costing Dean as much money as possible defending themselves. There by scaring other manufacturers into capitulating when they receive C&D notices. Its extremely expensive to defend yourself in federal court. The party the files can file motion after motion that will cost them very little in comparison to how mucho it will cost you to defend yourself. I know from experience.
Click to expand...
All the more reason to never own a Gibson.
 
reverend1 said:
They will more than likely lose the lawsuit since they never defended the design in the last 30 years. But this is more then likely about costing Dean as much money as possible defending themselves. There by scaring other manufacturers into capitulating when they receive C&D notices. Its extremely expensive to defend yourself in federal court. The party the files can file motion after motion that will cost them very little in comparison to how mucho it will cost you to defend yourself. I know from experience.
Click to expand...
yep.

lifestyle brand.
 
Filing this in the Eastern District of Texas seemed odd until I remembered an article about a certain part of Texas being very popular for corporate intellectual property cases.

@sunvalleylaw and Krashpad (if he's still around) might have some thoughts on this.

Both articles refer to patent litigation which is probably not exactly the same as trademark cases. It still suggests to me Gibson is forum-shopping based on the court's reputation.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/patently-unfair/

https://www.nutter.com/ip-law-bulletin/forum-shopping-in-the-eastern-district-of-texas

I may not be as outraged by some of this as other musicians. I think this is how big business law is played. I'm not ready to buy into a David vs. Goliath narrative until I know more about the respective companies.

As a layman, though, it seems like the body shapes have been copied for so long without action that trademark claims should not be upheld. The headstock is a different matter and I think Fender's situation sets a precedent. I don't think Dean's headstock is close enough to cause confusion in the marketplace.
 
Last edited:
972bfe03e6a86505adcc6c9d18e4a6d2.jpg
9dac5ab6a1b01a198d95c029410cbf94.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Gibson has a recent history over the past decade plus of pursuing some interesting tradedress infringement cases besides the big PRS debacle
Activision over guitar hero
Funko over those bobblehead slash dolls
Viacom over spongebob ukes
 
USian Pie said:
Filing this in the Eastern District of Texas seemed odd until I remembered an article about a certain part of Texas being very popular for corporate intellectual property cases.

@sunvalleylaw and Krashpad (if he's still around) might have some thoughts on this.

Both articles refer to patent litigation which is probably not exactly the same as trademark cases. It still suggests to me Gibson is forum-shopping based on the court's reputation.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/patently-unfair/

https://www.nutter.com/ip-law-bulletin/forum-shopping-in-the-eastern-district-of-texas

I may not be as outraged by some of this as other musicians. I think this is how big business law is played. I'm not ready to buy into a David vs. Goliath narrative until I know more about the respective companies.

As a layman, though, it seems like the body shapes have been copied for so long without action that trademark claims should not be upheld. The headstock is a different matter and I think Fender's situation sets a precedent. I don't think Dean's headstock is close enough to cause confusion in the marketplace.
Click to expand...
I have no real knowledge of this area of law other than the basics you already mention. Sorry to not be more of service. Seems pretty dumb to me, but I am no big biz lawyer.

I find it very hard to care very much, frankly. But that is partly why I am not in a big firm in a city. And regarding the David v. Goliath narrative, I find it hard to care very much about that either. I more or less agree with Randy on it, but no one forced Dean (and other companies) to start using these shapes however long ago.

I frankly will be surprised if Gibson gets any relief at this point in time after so many years, but I guess you never know. Certainly does not motivate me to go out and buy anything Gibson. Not that I was so motivated anyway.

EDIT: And @reverend1 is right about litigation costs. Though I am sure Gibson's lawyers will bill for every effort taken, so it will cost Gibson too. As for a comparison of cost of filing motions vs. defending, I guess that would depend on the motion. Filing discovery requests, then motions regarding discovery not having been provided doesn't cost much, and yes, it could cost a fair amount to respond. But again, I have never really played in those corporate law waters. Again, another reason why I am not much interested in the matter. Another example of companies using up resources (courts, judges, clerks, staff, etc.) to beat up on each other to get what they want. Meh.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top