Dear God Gibson, put a cork in it

[David Mason]

Gibson is now suing the WowWee company for marketing some flat, stringless, cardboard guitars called "Paper Jamz." They claim that because they look like Gibsons, they're afraid that somebody is going to mistake them for a real Gibson. "Mommy Mommy I wanna Les Paul..." etc.

This pretty much says something about the opinions they hold of their own guitar-shaped objects, huh? They're also suing WalMart, Toys R Us etc. - beats hell out of making a quality product that people want to buy. You'd have to pay employees and stuff to do that.

http://www.slashgear.com/gibson-sues-al ... -24116073/

[Kevin Hatton]

You CANNOT copyright a style of guitar. Gibson already lost that suit in court. They need to give it up.

[Ray Minich]

Intellectual Property is the new land grab. The problem is, the big fish go after the little ones that can't afford the litigation, even if the big fish are flat dead WRONG.

Civil litigation is not just expensive, it's very expensive, and defending yourself can break the bank.

That's what the big fish lawyers are hoping for...

[Mark van Allen]

One of the precepts of Intellectual Property law seems to be rigorous prosecution of any perceived infringement. As ridiculous as it sounds, it seems to be based on the idea that, should a future lawsuit ensue against a company making exact Gibson copies (as they have in China), the defense lawyers would be able to say, "Well, you guys didn't prosecute that company that copied your guitars in cardboard, so..."
If I'm not mistaken, the Paper Jamz guitars are being marketed actually using the wordsLes Paul and SG.
Any lawyer worth his salt would probably suggest prosecuting that.
Many of these cases do seem way over the line, though, like the recent Monster cable sagas.

[Darvin Willhoite]

I would think that may actually increase sales. It gets their profile out there in the hands of pre-beginners. My Grandson got one of those Paper Jamz for Christmas, he loves it.

[Steinar Gregertsen]

If I'm not mistaken, the Paper Jamz guitars are being marketed actually using the wordsLes Paul and SG.

The exact words:
"Rock out with this fantastic looking guitar in the shape of a Gibson SG!" - quoted from this site.

I don't know about the legal ins and outs of a case like this, but I can hardly imagine Gibson selling many guitars to these kids as they grow up and want a real guitar, after mom told them "sorry honey, but you can't have that special Paper Jamz toy guitar that looks like the one in AC/DC because Gibson didn't want them to make them..."

They lost against PRS in the case regarding a real guitar that looked a lot more like a Les Paul than these toys...

[Mike Neer]

I think Gibson or any other guitar manufacturer whose product likeness is sold in any other form should be entitled to some piece of the pie. Companies like Mattel, Inc. manufacture toy cars with permissions from the automobile manufacturers. Why should this be any different? I'm with Gibson on this and I think in the future there will be an explosion of trademark infringement lawsuits against these companies, which are primarily Chinese.

[Doug Beaumier]

FWIW: in 2005 Fender Lost it's "guitar body shape" case.

Fender tried to trademark the body shapes of the Stratocaster, Telecaster, and Precision, but was rejected by the US Patent Office Appeals Board. The board basically said that these body styles are so common today... they are no longer distinctively Fender. They said today's consumers don't necessarily recognize them as iconic Fender outlines. I guess Bob Wills was right... Time changes everything!

It's an interesting case. You can read the decision ---> HERE

[Mark Eaton]

That was interesting Doug, though I skimmed it more or less - didn't want to spend the whole afternoon reading it in detail.

And I learned a new word today from reading about the case: "Genericness"

[Dave Mudgett]

The Fender case was interesting - to me, these cases arise from a self-serving but completely mistaken impression that designs are trademarkable - I completely disagree. From the opinion, which was taken as precedent from a previous case -

"no designer should have a monopoly on designs regarded by the public as the basic form of a particular item"

Agreed completely, and it's nice to see some sanity on this issue.

Personally, I think this reasoning should be extended to the headstock shape, which they currently treat as a trademark. To me, the only long-term trademarkable thing should be the maker's logo. Otherwise, why not tell everybody making a dreadnaught guitar with a Martin-style headstock shape that they need to come up with a different shape. The shape is part of the design - it is far more about function than form, nor is it original. When criticized for 'copying' Paul Bigsby's headstock design, Leo said that his inspiration was similarly-shaped Serbo-Croatian instruments, and the reason he picked it was function, not form. This can be read in many interviews with Leo, starting with Tom Wheeler's "The Guitar Book", from the 1970s.

It is utterly unreasonable to insist that guitar makers have a right to hold infinite patents on design features. My opinion.

[Doug Beaumier]

I guess this means that "lawsuit guitars" are a thing of the past?

[Ron Davis]

Rickenbacker has kept up with protecting their design rights. You won't see any Ricky knock offs in the US music stores. Not even on eBay, new or used.
The reason Fender lost their case is because they basically waited too long to "enforce" their design patents.
A true case of "U snooze, U lose". lol

Guess Gibson's tryin' to hold on to what's theirs...
Can't really blame 'em, I reckon.

[Dave Mudgett]

One can only hope, Doug - but I don't think they're gonna go down without a fight .

I don't see Emmons suing Promat for infringing on their designs from the 60s. As far as I can see, the Promat is a very well built knockoff of an old push-pull. They're very clear to make a distinction as far as logo goes, but it you were to put an Emmons logo on there, who would be able to tell the difference, even fairly up-close?

Similarly, there have been reproductions made of old cars and many other things. Think about the screaming if we suddenly decided that pharmaceutical companies could hold intellectual property in perpetuity, thus wiping out inexpensive generically-produced drugs. It's all about whose ox is being gored.

Time marches on. The intended point of patent law was to give inventors a reasonable period over which they could monopolize production of their inventions so they could make enough profit to motivate them to keep on inventing things, NOT to freeze out the entire world from using and improving on those designs in perpetuity. The same goes for copyright, IMHO. I think the whole intellectual property system has been stood on its head by very large, very well-heeled corporate interests with armies of well-paid lobbyists and lawyers.

The reason Fender lost their case is because they basically waited too long to "enforce" their design patents.

That's not the way I read it. I see the issue as the shape of the body was interpreted as a design feature, not a trademark. You can only enforce a design patent for so long, then anybody can use it, either directly or to base new designs from.

[Bill Hatcher]

the coke company headquarters is here in atl. heck, they probably have entire floors of lawyers suing people the world over. thats just biz

[Bo Borland]

"I don't see Emmons suing Promat for infringing on their designs from the 60s"

That's probably because you need deep pockets to sue in a case like this and maybe because their patents are no longer protected.

IMHO, I think the body shape should be protected as a trademark as well a some headstock designs that are obviously easily as recognizable as the logo.

If someone decided to market a VW Bug lookalike.. VW would jump on it, with or without a VW logo on it.

To me, copyrights all come back to one thing.. If I wrote and published songs and I only scored a home run with one.... it should be my property forever.

[Doug Beaumier]

I noticed that some of those Paper Jamz toy guitars are shaped like Fenders... Strat and Tele with slightly different headstock shapes. I don't think Fender will be suing anytime soon.

[Ron Davis]

From what I've read, Fender was told they waited too long to dispute knock off's. That's partly the reason Rickenbacker is so hard core about copies.

It's worked for RIC...
I have 2 RIC's & 1 knock off. I was gonna sell the knock off on Craigslist & the ad got yanked. I then found out from thr RIC forum how hard Rickenbacker fights too keep their designs protected in the USA. That's where I read about why Fender had no where to stand in a dispute, being as they waited so long that the courts figured it was too late, even though it was their design.
Even the owner of RIC (John Hall) has posted on the RIC forum about RIC protecting their designs. Apparently Fender's dilemma has fueled the fire for RIC to protect their designs, even more.

I reckon it's a bit different for guitar design, than other things such as cars, etc... Since guitars are so mass produced. Even with pedal steels, there's not as much of a visual design issue as electric guitars. Basically all rectangular boxes. Many other variations, of course, but not distinctive like electric guitars.
(Maybe that's why there's not much disputing going on there...)

Ob-La-Di-Ob-La-Da... Life goes on.

[Dave Hopping]

IIRC counterfeiting a trademarked product can fall out of civil law and be treated as a criminal offense,although the prosecution of counterfeiting seems nearly always to confine itself to infringements of government-held "copyrights",chiefly those held on US currency.

It's true there's been little if any news of prosecutorial scrutiny of the Chinese-made Gibson counterfeits or those responsible for their availability in the USA,doubtless not as much prosecutorial scrutiny as the matter of certain lumber ordered by Gibson.

I think Gibson is developing a pattern of vigorous response to intellectual property theft as preparation for ongoing court battles with bigger entities,such as the People's Liberation Army,which engages in numerous commercial and manufacturing activities in its home country.Me,I'm on Gibson's side all the way.

[David Mason]

The only way it makes sense to me is that Gibson has a staff of well-paid in-house lawyers, who keep this stuff up because they need to justify their existence. There absolutely are lawyers and teams of lawyers who peruse the entire national and international sphere of products, just looking for lawsuits that can be brought - you see the ads all the time looking for people to participate in class-action lawsuits, for example.

However, if you were an external team of lawyers who approached Gibson, saying "pay us X amount of dollars and we'll pursue this lawsuit", it would be silly for Gibson to spend the money, because they've already lost the substantial part of these suits. Sure they can force PaperJamz to stop using the term "SG" in their ads, but they missed the boat on shapes long, long ago.

[Dave Hopping]

We might see the issue in a somewhat different light were the PLA to figure out a cost-effective way of making phony pedal steel guitars with names like Mullen,GFI,Rains,Desert Rose....and Franklin.

[Peter Huggins]

Looks like they got it. From today's Premier Guitar daily news page:

Los Angeles, CA (December 22, 2010) - Gibson Guitar Corp. was granted a request for an injunction against WOWWEE USA Inc, the makers of Paper Jamz, and its retailers, which include Wal-Mart, Amazon.com, Big Lots Stores, K Mart Corporation, Target Corporation, Toys “R” Us- Delaware Inc, Walgreen Co., Brookstone Company, Best Buy Co. Inc, eBay Inc, Toywiz Inc and HSN Inc.

The initial complaint, filed by Gibson Guitar Corp. on November 18, 2010, stated that the WOWWEE USA Inc produced Paper Jamz products wrongfully copy Gibson’s famous guitars, the LES PAUL, FLYING V, EXPLORER and SG. Gibson states that they intend to remain aggressive in protecting such trademarks, as it relates to its guitar shapes and designs and that it is of the highest priority to protect a consumer’s right to purchase an authentic Gibson guitar, regardless of the form.

The granted injunction indicates that Gibson Guitar Corp. would be irreparably harmed by the continued sale of the products and requires retailers to remove all included Paper Jamz models from their shelves immediately.

Gibson Guitar Corporation, founded in 1894 and Incorporated in 1902, is headquartered in Nashville, TN. It is the leading maker of acoustic and electric guitars. For more information about its products, please visit gibson.com.


(The original release said Gibson was founded in 1994, I corrected this.)

[Tony Prior]

if they are advertising using the "looks like a Gibson"
phrase then they should be shut down. It's one thing to make a cardboard copy it's quite another to use the name , especially in advertising.